Can i get out of my student loan?!

phlash

Nickynoo1 wrote: »

Phlash,

Why would you get so wound up? He's only asking if he could get away with it.

He is implying, by lack of action to date, and the subsequent question that he wishes to get away with it. That is diiferent to posting a hypothetical question.

Where is the OP?

oldsongsnewstereo

phlash wrote: »

He is implying, by lack of action to date, and the subsequent question that he wishes to get away with it. That is diiferent to posting a hypothetical question.

Where is the OP?

Surely everyone who owes more than several thousand would rather keep the money than pay it back. Is that not human nature or am I missing something?

Abuse isn't going to bring the OP back to this thread and even if he/she did come back then what do you expect the OP to say?

phlash

oldsongsnewstereo wrote: »

Surely everyone who owes more than several thousand would rather keep the money than pay it back. Is that not human nature or am I missing something?

Abuse isn't going to bring the OP back to this thread and even if he/she did come back then what do you expect the OP to say?

I'm sure everyone would rather not have to pay money back. Does that make it right. No.

So I take it from your reply, you also approve of fraud?

Enron was a good thing in your eyes was it? At the end of the day, concept is the same, the amounts are different. How much money does it take in your eyes for someone to be in the wrong? Because I'm pretty sure you would approve of the people jailed in the Enron case. So where is your line in the sand?

My line is firmly placed, the OP borrowed money off of the taxpayer, he/she owes it back. It seems simple to me. I owe £16,000 from student loan, I am not ducking out, nor should anyone. I signed an agreement like everyone else.

Blacksheep1979

oldsongsnewstereo wrote: »

Surely everyone who owes more than several thousand would rather keep the money than pay it back. Is that not human nature or am I missing something?

Abuse isn't going to bring the OP back to this thread and even if he/she did come back then what do you expect the OP to say?

But there's a big difference between wanting something and doing something. It's this consideration for others and self control that sets us apart from other animals and makes us human.

If the OP doesn't have this consideration for others then why should they have it in return; infact as they're effectively stealing from me (or thinking about it) then why can't I just go into their house and start pulling their fingernails out until they give me their pin codes and then empty their bank accounts? You'd all agree I was wrong to do that, but why should they even for a second consider it is ok to do what they want to do (and they do want to as they wouldn't have asked otherwise).

oldsongsnewstereo

The point is he has not done anything wrong as yet. He has not commited fraud. He has simply come here to seek advice and help to make the right decision. Being offensive is not helpful. If you're really worked up about it and wanted to persuade someone to make a decision in your favour you would be kind, gentle, helpful and talk to him like he's your OH

No, I do not approve of fraud. I believe one of your points in a previous post summed it up perfectly- what goes around comes around; things come back to haunt you; skeletons in the closet etc. etc. To start questioning my morals has nothing to do with you. Comparing this to Enron... I've never laughed so hard :rotfl:

I'd be more than happy to start a debate on why this is nothing like Enron... :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

phlash

oldsongsnewstereo wrote: »

The point is he has not done anything wrong as yet. He has not commited fraud. He has simply come here to seek advice and help to make the right decision. Being offensive is not helpful. If you're really worked up about it and wanted to persuade someone to make a decision in your favour you would be kind, gentle, helpful and talk to him like he's your OH

No, I do not approve of fraud. I believe one of your points in a previous post summed it up perfectly- what goes around comes around; things come back to haunt you; skeletons in the closet etc. etc. To start questioning my morals has nothing to do with you. Comparing this to Enron... I've never laughed so hard :rotfl:

I'd be more than happy to start a debate on why this is nothing like Enron... :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Point out the offensive part.

If you quote point 11, I stand up and say I believe this is not offensive, and I do believe it is pathetic.

oldsongsnewstereo

phlash wrote: »

Point out the offensive part.

If you quote point 11, I stand up and say I believe this is not offensive, and I do believe it is pathetic.

IMHO, typing furiously into a generic computer screen to slate a complete stranger on the internet is pathetic in itself.

I guess I must be the only one with this POV so i'll back away and no longer take part in this thread.

phlash

oldsongsnewstereo wrote: »

IMHO, typing furiously into a generic computer screen to slate a complete stranger on the internet is pathetic in itself.

I guess I must be the only one with this POV so i'll back away and no longer take part in this thread.

The first accusation was me being offensive, which I challenged and you replied without answer.

The second accusation is that I was slating. I invite evidence of this also.

Thats two unfounded accusations and conveniently you will not reply to the thread any further.

Back on topic....it is the OP's legal obligation to pay the loan and update the SLC of any information relevant to paying th eloan back. The OP is well aware of the SLC having misinformation, and frankly would be in a difficult position if discovered.

It is in the interest of MoneySaving, to step forward and pay back the loan because this situation could cost alot more than the outstanding loan.

I do not support any ideas/support for trying to avoid repayment.

Spectralis

The whole student loans arrangement is unfair. The Tory and Labour government ministers who brought it in got a free university eduction and the rich get virtually free education because the posh schools are charities so fees are tax deductible. There are all sorts of loopholes politicians and the rich use to get out of paying for education while us working people who pay tax get stung twice by having to pay for further education. Education that is used and exploited by employers who contribute nothing but reap the benefits of educated and skilled labour.

I advise against taking the risk of using two NI numbers but that doesn't mean the whole student loan arrangement is acceptable. A lot of students were using bankruptcy while it existed as a loophole and more power to them. If students have a chance to get out of paying for something their parents have already paid for in taxes them good luck to them.

We should be using our tax money to fund health care and education instead of funding wars and bailing out bankers. The biggest fraudsters are this government who allowed the super rich to get away with daylight robbery on the market. We're the ones who will suffer because of this and they are being bailed out.

So plash, before you start getting all moralistic on the OP how about pointing the finger at the real con people who set up the loans business? They're excluding the poor and low waged from further education because they know that we can't afford to send out kids to uni.

phlash

Spectralis wrote: »

The whole student loans arrangement is unfair. The Tory and Labour government ministers who brought it in got a free university eduction and the rich get virtually free education because the posh schools are charities so fees are tax deductible. There are all sorts of loopholes politicians and the rich use to get out of paying for education while us working people who pay tax get stung twice by having to pay for further education. Education that is used and exploited by employers who contribute nothing but reap the benefits of educated and skilled labour.

I advise against taking the risk of using two NI numbers but that doesn't mean the whole student loan arrangement is acceptable. A lot of students were using bankruptcy while it existed as a loophole and more power to them. If students have a chance to get out of paying for something their parents have already paid for in taxes them good luck to them.

We should be using our tax money to fund health care and education instead of funding wars and bailing out bankers. The biggest fraudsters are this government who allowed the super rich to get away with daylight robbery on the market. We're the ones who will suffer because of this and they are being bailed out.

So plash, before you start getting all moralistic on the OP how about pointing the finger at the real con people who set up the loans business? They're excluding the poor and low waged from further education because they know that we can't afford to send out kids to uni.

Political persuasion still has nothing to do with the t&c's of a contract.

You will find that the student loan allowed the low waged families to send their children to University. The repayment scheme is not cripling, as I myself have £16,000 of student loan. If I don't manage to pay it off by the time I reach 65, I am helped out and it is wiped. The current scheme wipes it after 25 years.

There are now non-repayable grants on offer up to about £2,800 pa. None of these policies are blocking the low waged from accessing higher education. Although I cringe at the banks being rescued with tax payers money, I think they were left with little choice. I agree with the decision made but utterly disagree with the banks not being controlled prior to this. Mortgage caps etc would have controlled house prices.

The average salary of a graduate still far exceeds that of a non-graduate, implying that employers are not exploiting graduates that much. I believe the problem is that there are too many graduates for the job market, the graduate intake should be more restricted I guess. This extra income in comparison to non graduates does mean that they can afford the 9% of everything over £15,000.

I find that what you have said is unfounded. If we had more quality degrees and further education, then maybe those that went could be paid for by the state. We don't, therefore student loans are needed to fund degrees like Beckham Studies. I think your finger might be pointing in the wrong direction. If you want the tax payer to take on the burden of paying for current higher education, get into politics. You certainly would have to cut the number of nurses with that budget, especially in the current climate.