Student Loan 2015 Discussion

atypical

DaveO wrote: »

If that were to happen I'd hope ML would be shouting the consequences of any such variance in the T&C's loud and clear.

It would be fantastic if he did. It would expose such a cynical move for what it is but I have to say I don't think he would.

He would be shouting about it loud and clear. There's no reason he wouldn't. He, and this whole site, is pro-consumer.

As I've posted before, the fact that terms can be varied is found in 3 different places on this site. I think that's sufficient.

Dunroamin

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, it's partly numbers but it's also quality. Many people are going to university who quite frankly shouldn't be there and we've in effect just raised the school leaving age to 21.

I wouldn't disagree with that - it's what happens when we allow academic stadards to plummet.

DaveO

Dunroamin wrote: »

You can't just rule out the large number of graduates who aren't in graduate level jobs as "not the point of the exercise". The reality is that, with the number of people now going to university, there is nothing like the amount of graduate level employment to soak up the number of available graduates.

Whether or not currently the economy means higher levels of graduate unemployment isn't the issue. At some point you have to expect employment to be found and while it might not be in the graduates field that doesn't mean they won't end up earning enough to trigger loan repayments and thus face a marginal tax rate of 42%.

If shed loads remain under the payment threshold (more than predicted) the system isn't sustainable so that will just be another factor in putting pressure on the T&C's to be varied.

Your argument also ignores the number of people who will never work (or only work part time) because of illness, disability, childcare or caring responsibilities, whether for the whole of their lives or only part of them.

And how many will that be? I'd suggest very few relative to those who do find work. Most Uni's boast of high rates of graduate placement in work. That may go down a bit due to the economic climate but I don't think there are going to be huge numbers not working for the reasons you suggest.

In any case it's the effect of any changes on those who do get a job that is the issue, not on those who don't.

The majority of students aren't going to go into a graduate level job earning over £21,000 and then climb the career ladder to lofty financial heights with never a break in employment or a dip in their earnings. Life isn't like that.

You don't have any proof of that at all. I just did a Google search for jobs paying over £21k and call centre jobs were coming up.

DaveO

atypical wrote: »

He would be shouting about it loud and clear. There's no reason he wouldn't. He, and this whole site, is pro-consumer.

He's talked himself into a corner over this issue in my opinion.

By the essentially positive spin he puts on the way the system works and without what I believe is the appropriate level of emphasis on the negatives he comes across as pro-government not pro-consumer to me on this issue.

He was asked to explain the system by government which he said he found an invitation impossible to refuse. He even said he would only do it if he could say he was no fan of the changes.

Has he ever said that and does he include it when enthusiastically explaining you don't pay if you don't earn £21k etc?

It is a poor system and I'd have more faith in him if he said "Look it's rubbish but..."

I just think he'd find it hard to reverse his essentially positive spin he puts on this.

As I've posted before, the fact that terms can be varied is found in 3 different places on this site. I think that's sufficient.

Context is everything and given the way the loan mythbusting is set out on this site and how he presents it personally as seen on TV we will have to agree to disagree on that.

setmefree2

atypical wrote: »

He would be shouting about it loud and clear. There's no reason he wouldn't. He, and this whole site, is pro-consumer.

Pur-lease. This site is owned by moneysupermarket.com. It's raison d'etre is to make money for moneysupermarket.com shareholders - of whom ML is a major one - not look after consumer's interests. Maybe we should coin a new term akin to greenwash - consumerwash.

None of this is a secret
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/05/moneysupermarketcom-simon-nixon-windfall

Here he is again
Moneysupermarket founder is accused of being a £60m tax ‘traitor’ after packing up and moving to Jersey

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2336549/Moneysupermarket-site-founder-accused-tax-traitor-packing-moving-Jersey.html




Seriously, do you think Simon Nixon cares if you or your kids are paying/will be paying a marginal tax rate of nearly 42%?

setmefree2

Thought posters might find this article interesting

Alma mater earnings data: ground zero sums?



http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/alma-mater-earnings-data-ground-zero-sums/2004887.article

atypical

setmefree2 wrote: »

Pur-lease. This site is owned by moneysupermarket.com. It's raison d'etre is to make money for moneysupermarket.com shareholders - of whom ML is a major one - not look after consumer's interests.

The site makes money by being pro-consumer. It's what drives traffic and ultimately the referral commission.

The site being owned by moneysupermarket.com has no practical influence on the way the site explains student loans.

Dunroamin

DaveO wrote: »

And how many will that be? I'd suggest very few relative to those who do find work. Most Uni's boast of high rates of graduate placement in work. That may go down a bit due to the economic climate but I don't think there are going to be huge numbers not working for the reasons you suggest.

In any case it's the effect of any changes on those who do get a job that is the issue, not on those who don't.



You don't have any proof of that at all. I just did a Google search for jobs paying over £21k and call centre jobs were coming up.

Given that more than 50% of graduates are female, I'll stick to my opinion that the majority of graduates will have periods when they earn nothing or only work part time.

setmefree2

atypical wrote: »

The site makes money by being pro-consumer.

Nah. The site makes money by sending users to moneysupermarket.com. It attracts people to the site because they believe it to be pro-consumer.

Let's think about greenwashing for a second. Greenwashing or "green sheen," is just is a form of spin in which green PR or green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization's aims and policies are environmentally friendly. Whether it is to increase profits or gain political support, greenwashing may be used to manipulate popular opinion to support otherwise questionable aims.

It works. Companies make lots of money by greenwashing. Lots of political support has been gained by political parties from greenwashing.

For example, BP's aim is to make money for its shareholders. It does this often by promoting itself and its products as green.





Moneysavingexpert's aim is to make money for moneysupermarket.com shareholders. They do this by promoting the site as pro-consumer.

atypical wrote: »

The site being owned by moneysupermarket.com has no practical influence on the way the site explains student loans.

You hope? Perhaps, the articles on student loans are just consumerwash?

Dunroamin

setmefree2 wrote: »

Nah. The site makes money by sending users to moneysupermarket.com. It attracts people to the site because they believe it to be pro-consumer.

Let's think about greenwashing for a second. Greenwashing or "green sheen," is just is a form of spin in which green PR or green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization's aims and policies are environmentally friendly. Whether it is to increase profits or gain political support, greenwashing may be used to manipulate popular opinion to support otherwise questionable aims.

It works. Companies make lots of money by greenwashing. Lots of political support has been gained by political parties from greenwashing.

For example, BP's aim is to make money for its shareholders. It does this often by promoting itself and its products as green.





Moneysavingexpert's aim is to make money for moneysupermarket.com shareholders. They do this by promoting the site as pro-consumer.





You hope? Perhaps, the articles on student loans are just consumerwash?

Whilst I take your point, what benefit would it be to private companies/banks if student were encouraged to take out loans from the SLC? MSE is actually quite negative about students getting into debt outside this structure.