Student Loan 2015 Discussion

Taiko

Sean, Josh, Jack, Joe,

I'm afraid that, if your teachers marked your project correctly instead of any political bias they may use, you'd be failing your course.

As atypical said, fee loans, which are not repaid until after you've finished studying, are available to all those who meet the standard criteria, which is residency and course designation. Your argument stating that nobody could afford to go is so badly wrong, it's unreal.

I would therefore suggest that you take the time to read the various guides to the new system, which actually explain it pretty well. Right now, your knowledge on the subject you are so angry about is abysmal.

Oldernotwiser

I have to agree with both of the above posts.

I could appreciate some people in your situation thinking as you do without knowing anything about the changes but it's rather frightening that you believe this after "researching" the situation.

I'd be interested to know what comments and grades you got for your project and how old you are.

cuthberts

Thank you for your replies, obviously we are aware that the rise in tuition fees will not actually prevent anyone from attending university, but we have found that the thought of being in so much debt willl deter many young people such as ourselves from going to university. We though that it would be a good idea if universities could provide a breakdown of what we will be paying for, and justify why they have all gone for the top level of fees.

Taiko

cuthberts wrote: »

.
Also, only a small majority of children with wealthy parents will be able to go to University leaving a huge majority of people , who are clever enough to go to University wont be able to , leaving therefore room for more unemployment in our country...

But then you've changed your tune. You say in one breath people won't be able to go, then in the next that actually there's nothing stopping them.

It's not even really a debt as such. How many debts do you know on which you can make minimum repayments, and repayment is frozen when you are not earning a great deal? Think of it more as a tax, rather than a debt.

mrs_deadline

Taiko, I am struggling with your thought experiment: how can I think of it as a "tax"? Tax is a way of spreading costs across the whole of society. Here we have one generation being "taxed" very heavily for something that previous generations received subsidised or for free.

If it is a tax, why not spread the burden fairly among all who have benefited from a university education?

If it is a tax, how can people still be liable for it when they move abroad and outside the UK tax system?

That makes it a debt, and for all you say about capped repayments, the interest rates and repayment terms make it rather uncompetitive to anyone who has other options such as the bank of mum and dad.

Sean, Josh, Jack and Joe are rightly wary of paying high fees that might not deliver good value for money, and of getting into 30 years of debt for the sake of this gamble. I don't blame them!

Oldernotwiser

mrs_deadline wrote: »

Taiko, I am struggling with your thought experiment: how can I think of it as a "tax"? Tax is a way of spreading costs across the whole of society. Here we have one generation being "taxed" very heavily for something that previous generations received subsidised or for free.

If it is a tax, why not spread the burden fairly among all who have benefited from a university education?

If it is a tax, how can people still be liable for it when they move abroad and outside the UK tax system?

That makes it a debt, and for all you say about capped repayments, the interest rates and repayment terms make it rather uncompetitive to anyone who has other options such as the bank of mum and dad.

Sean, Josh, Jack and Joe are rightly wary of paying high fees that might not deliver good value for money, and of getting into 30 years of debt for the sake of this gamble. I don't blame them!

I can't speak for Taiko but I always encouraged my clients to look on it as a graduate tax (which I believe it should've been). Expecting to pay a tax of 9% on all earnings over £21,000 is far less off putting than thinking of it as a debt hanging over you. The situation is exactly the same, with the bonus that the "tax" will cease at some point in the future.

I believe that students should think only of repayments, which will always be affordable.

(NB There are plenty of retired people who live abroad and still pay tax in the UK.)

melancholly

mrs_deadline wrote: »

Taiko, I am struggling with your thought experiment: how can I think of it as a "tax"? Tax is a way of spreading costs across the whole of society. Here we have one generation being "taxed" very heavily for something that previous generations received subsidised or for free.

If it is a tax, why not spread the burden fairly among all who have benefited from a university education?

If it is a tax, how can people still be liable for it when they move abroad and outside the UK tax system?

That makes it a debt, and for all you say about capped repayments, the interest rates and repayment terms make it rather uncompetitive to anyone who has other options such as the bank of mum and dad.

Sean, Josh, Jack and Joe are rightly wary of paying high fees that might not deliver good value for money, and of getting into 30 years of debt for the sake of this gamble. I don't blame them!

i can kind of see your point, but i think conceptualising the repayments as a tax is a better way of thinking about it than a 'debt' in a classic sense.

in some ways you could argue that tax already isn't spread about the whole of society. road tax is only paid by car owners, VAT by people who buy more 'luxury' goods (in principle; plenty of value added stuff seems like an essential to me!). tax isn't applied equally to all; those who earn more pay more as a proportion, and a higher proportion as the income increases.

i've certainly heard people say that if their degree helps them get a well paid job, that they've already paid back more by going into a higher tax bracket (sadly that doesn't apply to me!). unfortunately, fee education is no more - went away thanks to a Labour lie and now is being taken to an extreme thanks to a coalition. i guess at least we can blame all three main parties!

i think HE should be free - but that ship has sailed and arguing that point after 12 years of intakes with fees isn't going to get anywhere. that's not that i don't agree, just that i think it's not a fight which anyone can win...... we need to do the best with the current situation.

whether HE is value for money is as much about students selecting a good course for them that will help them in a career. now i think university should be as much about love for a subject and not about planning a career at 17 when you apply to UCAS. but students certainly need to think about how their degree will be thought of and do activities at uni to help them get a good CV. getting value for money is as much about students taking advantage of university opportunities as the uni courses giving good lectures. graduate recruitment now requires a lot more than just a subject and grade!

the other thing that i've said over and over again; most students can't use the bank of mum and dad for £15K a year. if people continue to focus on the totals and not the repayment terms, it tells half the story and helps continue to fallacy that only the rich can go to uni. that isn't the case and will do more to harm access than the change in fees would ever have managed on its own.

mumps

The reality is that many people are deciding not to go to university next year because the debt frightens them. I know three people at work who had been positive about their children going to uni next year. Two of them are sure they have convinced their children it isn't worth the debt. The third is resigned to his daughter going but not happy about it but she is determined. I am not saying they are right but that is a definite feeling out there. These young people would all have been the first in their family to go to university and certainly two wanted to go but now it looks like only one will. It will be interesting to see what happens to numbers next year.

mrs_deadline

melancholly wrote: »

the other thing that i've said over and over again; most students can't use the bank of mum and dad for £15K a year. if people continue to focus on the totals and not the repayment terms, it tells half the story and helps continue to fallacy that only the rich can go to uni. that isn't the case and will do more to harm access than the change in fees would ever have managed on its own.

The total is not just the other half of the story: it will be hanging round their necks for ten times as long as their degree courses, by my reckoning that is 90 % of the story!

Students must think very carefully about the financial goals they might have for the next 30 years before taking on this uncompetitive debt. Or in your terms, opting in to a 50% marginal tax rate.

More than once on these boards I've tried to persuade young people not to take on (supposedly affordable) 30-year mortgages, because at 18 most have no concept of the cost of living combined with the drudgery of monthly repayments, the impact of which is nearly always underestimated until it's too late to back out.

This scheme is no different from reckless lending on mortgages, with even less consumer protection in place, and ultimately unsustainable, because potential high earners, if they have any sense, will look at the totals and want nothing to do with it.

Lokolo

mrs_deadline wrote: »

The total is not just the other half of the story: it will be hanging round their necks for ten times as long as their degree courses, by my reckoning that is 90 % of the story!

[/B]Students must think very carefully about the financial goals they might have for the next 30 years before taking on this uncompetitive debt. Or in your terms, opting in to a 50% marginal tax rate.

More than once on these boards I've tried to persuade young people not to take on (supposedly affordable) 30-year mortgages, because at 18 most have no concept of the cost of living combined with the drudgery of monthly repayments, the impact of which is nearly always underestimated until it's too late to back out.

This scheme is no different from reckless lending on mortgages, with even less consumer protection in place, and ultimately unsustainable, because potential high earners, if they have any sense, will look at the totals and want nothing to do with it.

That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen! Student loan payments are nothing like mortgage repayments.

Mortgage repayments you still have to pay when you are no longer working.
Mortgage repayments still get paid if you die.
Mortgage repayments don't get wiped after 30 years (unless you pay it off).