'Don't pay your kids tuition fees upfront' Discussion Area

PaulW1965

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Although you've quoted this accurately, by taking it out of context it make s it unclear that the repayment quoted is for a graduate's total career. The implication is that a graduate earning £22,000 will repay £5,829 each year when in fact they would pay only £10 pa.

I think that your use of this information in this way is very misleading,

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has calculated that a student earning £22,000 will repay £5,829, just over a quarter of their salary. By the time their salary reaches £30,000 their repayments increase to £9,429 31% of their pay

Sorry but I think it's you who misunderstand. They are the figures per year! They are a graduates total tax bill when they earn £22k and £31k.

Personally, I find these figures a little shocking. But you can reserve your right not to be shocked if you like, it's not mandatory!

Oldernotwiser

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Sorry but I think it's you who misunderstand. They are the figures per year! They are a graduates total tax bill when they earn £22k and £31k.

Personally, I find these figures a little shocking. But you can reserve your right not to be shocked if you like, it's not mandatory!

Perhaps I have misunderstood but, if so, I think that they are very wrong to use the word "repay" in this context. You don't "repay" tax and NICs, you "pay" them; you only "repay" loans.

In addition, if they meant it this way, what a strange thing to say.

"The Chartered Institute of Taxation has calculated that a student earning £22,000 will repay £5,829, just over a quarter of their salary."

In those circumstances, a graduate will actually be repaying £90pa for his/her student loan, which I don't find shocking at all!

susanblack6520

i agree with you. it is usually unwise to pay money in advance.

Lokolo

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

Yes sure I know about the repayment terms being the same for everyone. I'm not being arrogant or looking for an argument here,but, what happens when the majority of students won't pay off the loan?? Someone will have to pay for it. I wonder who. Someone will further down the line.

Taxpayers in general will.

How do you think university education was paid for before loans and tuition fees? It came out of the government spending.

Before tuition fees it would cost the government ~£9k a year which went to the universities.

Tuition fees limited, cost the government ~£6k, student ~£3K. However because loans are written off the overall effect would be around ~£7k to ~£2k.

Now tuition fees cost the government £0k, but student pays ~£9k. However because loans are written off the overall effect would be the same as before. However, those that earn more will pay back more.

arsenalbarnie

Lokolo wrote: »

Taxpayers in general will.

How do you think university education was paid for before loans and tuition fees? It came out of the government spending.

Before tuition fees it would cost the government ~£9k a year which went to the universities.

Tuition fees limited, cost the government ~£6k, student ~£3K. However because loans are written off the overall effect would be around ~£7k to ~£2k.

Now tuition fees cost the government £0k, but student pays ~£9k. However because loans are written off the overall effect would be the same as before. However, those that earn more will pay back more.

That's what I was alluding to maybe it wasn't clear.

So if it is going to be the taxpayers that ultimately pay for this mess, why bother doing all this to start with? Why not have free university education, no, the govt want us to think everyone is paying for their own degrees, when really the taxpayer is going to be picking up the bill in the long run. I don't get it. It may eventually start paying for itself in 35 years time, that's if we have any universities left.

PaulW1965

nbldmum wrote: »

£9k+ per year - ok for those used to private education fees.

Other posters probably know this but I only just looked up ML on wiki and he went to a £11k pa private school. Which, for me, might explain why he isn't scandalised by this whole tuition fee thing. Of course, I'm sure this has no baring on his views. His first degree is in Government and Law and his masters is in journalism.

Oldernotwiser

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Other posters probably know this but I only just looked up ML on wiki and he went to a £11k pa private school. Which, for me, might explain why he isn't scandalised by this whole tuition fee thing. Of course, I'm sure this has no baring on his views. His first degree is in Government and Law and his masters is in journalism.

What's the point about being scandalised about an existing situation over which someone is powerless?

Lokolo

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

That's what I was alluding to maybe it wasn't clear.

So if it is going to be the taxpayers that ultimately pay for this mess, why bother doing all this to start with? Why not have free university education, no, the govt want us to think everyone is paying for their own degrees, when really the taxpayer is going to be picking up the bill in the long run. I don't get it. It may eventually start paying for itself in 35 years time, that's if we have any universities left.

Your post makes no sense. The government just wants to pay less. This is the way to do it. We cannot have free university because the UK cannot afford it. The UK is in deficit, that means the government is spending more than getting in from taxes. The idea of tuiton fees is to cut down on the amount being spent on university education, the government arent wanting to cut their university costs fully, they just want to limit it.

Its not about the taxpayer paying for it in 35 years, we are paying it now and get an income in future years.

The government, without tuition fees will have an output 9k, but with tuition fees they have output of 9k BUT get an income back of 4k say, which means they are better off.

arsenalbarnie

Lokolo wrote: »

Your post makes no sense. The government just wants to pay less. This is the way to do it. We cannot have free university because the UK cannot afford it. The UK is in deficit, that means the government is spending more than getting in from taxes. The idea of tuiton fees is to cut down on the amount being spent on university education, the government arent wanting to cut their university costs fully, they just want to limit it.

Its not about the taxpayer paying for it in 35 years, we are paying it now and get an income in future years.

The government, without tuition fees will have an output 9k, but with tuition fees they have output of 9k BUT get an income back of 4k say, which means they are better off.

I can see your point re getting some money back but to have a loan system whereby it may never be paid back is irresponsible and ultimately the taxpayer will suffer. I know student loans are arranged this way currently but I would imagine more get paid off because the interest rate and threshold are lower.

I don't agree with it. Try to convince me otherwise.

Lokolo

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

I can see your point re getting some money back but to have a loan system whereby it may never be paid back is irresponsible and ultimately the taxpayer will suffer. I know student loans are arranged this way currently but I would imagine more get paid off because the interest rate and threshold are lower.

I don't agree with it. Try to convince me otherwise.

No they won't! What do not understand?

Without tuition fees the taxpayer suffers £9k per student per year at university education.

With tuition fees and loans they taxpayer suffers the difference between the amount taken and the amount pays back, which is up to £9k, so likely the taxpayer only suffers around £5-6k!

The taxpayer suffers LESS with the loan because the student pays some or all of it!

So how would having free university education - whereby the taxpayer pays for EVERYTHING be better off to the tax payer!?