Student Debt on MoneyBox Live BBC4 RUBBISH!!

Oldernotwiser

setmefree2 wrote: »

Yup. The parents with kids going to Uni in 2012 (and soon after) are on one side. The lecturers, reseachers and everyone else with no kids are on the other..... I guess that tells you something....
.

It is not "parents with kids going to Uni" on one side, it's rich parents who can afford to pay their kids' fees. If that's your situation, then good luck to you but why keep on posting about the enormous amounts of debt everybody else's children are going to be racking up if the intention isn't to put off students from less wealthy families from going to university?

Have you not noticed the missing voice in these discussions - the voice of all those parents (and students) from normal families who don't have many thousands of pounds available to them. I only hope that your assertions haven't convinced them that university isn't for the likes of them and is only for the wealthy like you.

Lokolo

iclaudius wrote: »

I understand this is how he's done it which is why I'm calling those tools 'dodgy'

All of those calculations are based on the premise that people's salaries grow by 2% per annum in a straight line starting from their first job. While some rates are universal and beyond an individual's control (such as RPI or Tax) this is one area which varies wildly.

Most starting salaries are pretty sorry but tend to rise quickly as your career progresses. For me that was 16% p.a. for the first 7 years of work. This rate may taper or even decline - who knows - but using a straight line instead of a curve really messes with those figures.

Ah OK. I do understand what you mean now, however the tool is only meant to be basic. Others, such as gadget, have created their own spreadsheets with their salary increases (which I believe are something like the same as yours) to consider what impact that would have. And I agree with you, it varies wildly from person to person. Then again, it hasn't considered career breaks for travelling or holiday. Nor as it considered that you may get sacked or made redundant. etc.

I wouldn't call the tool dodgy, just basic. And for what it is meant to be, it is good and it shows what the implications of the new rules have.

iclaudius_2

Lokolo wrote: »

Others, such as gadget, have created their own spreadsheets with their salary increases (which I believe are something like the same as yours) to consider what impact that would have.

Cheers for this - sounds very interesting. Can you please provide a link to these tools?

Lokolo wrote: »

Then again, it hasn't considered career breaks for travelling or holiday. Nor as it considered that you may get sacked or made redundant. etc.

Yes - the issue with a straight 2% is that a low starting salaries could rise quickly to the London mean and then stay around there meaning your repayment (and interest rate charged) is high for most of your working life.

Lokolo wrote: »

I wouldn't call the tool dodgy, just basic. And for what it is meant to be, it is good and it shows what the implications of the new rules have.

If not dodgy, then misleadingly optimistic. The tool is accurate if your salary starts low and then grows by 2% per annum - hitting £21k slowly and rising from that slowly. I would argue that for many people they start low, grow quickly and therefore pay more 'tax' longer.

setmefree2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It is not "parents with kids going to Uni" on one side, it's rich parents who can afford to pay their kids' fees.

I'm not aware that 2sides2everystory is planning on paying his 4 kids fees upfront? Nor Devildog? And you definitely have no kids. I'm not really sure what you bring to any thread other than insults.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If that's your situation, then good luck to you but why keep on posting about the enormous amounts of debt everybody else's children are going to be racking up if the intention isn't to put off students from less wealthy families from going to university?

I didn't start this thread I-claudius did? So why are you attacking me (again) *yawn*

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Have you not noticed the missing voice in these discussions - the voice of all those parents (and students) from normal families who don't have many thousands of pounds available to them. I only hope that your assertions haven't convinced them that university isn't for the likes of them and is only for the wealthy like you.

So you think the figures are off-putting? And your solution to that is to not discuss them? Maybe you should try laying some of the blame where it really lies - at the feet of the government?

setmefree2

iclaudius wrote: »

If not dodgy, then misleadingly optimistic. The tool is accurate if your salary starts low and then grows by 2% per annum - hitting £21k slowly and rising from that slowly. I would argue that for many people they start low, grow quickly and therefore pay more 'tax' longer.

There is another Student Loan Calculator here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14785676

Baker Tilly (Accountants) did a template spreadsheet for the BBC. It's about half way down the page here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12767850

It was awhile ago now so I can't remember if it has all its assumptions correct. Looking at again the maintenance loan is probably a little low, they have £4k ,and it is more likely to be £5.5k (more if you are studying in London). But they seem to have uprated the thresholds. Anyway, it can be copied - so you can go through as many different scenarios as you like.

But what you really need is a crystal ball......

Oldernotwiser

setmefree2 wrote: »

I'm not aware that 2sides2everystory is planning on paying his 4 kids fees upfront? Nor Devildog? And you definitely have no kids. I'm not really sure what you bring to any thread other than insults.

Who said I don't have kids?


So you think the figures are off-putting? And your solution to that is to not discuss them? Maybe you should try laying some of the blame where it really lies - at the feet of the government?

The figures are not off putting - the twist you and others put on them, however, is.

I did not vote for this government (never voted Tory in my life) and am more than happy to put the blame at their feet. I think the current situation is appalling (as do most of the people you're arguing with) but the fact is, it is the current situation and everybody with an opinion or a role to play has to accept that.

As has been said so many times, what is a student from a normal family to do except to see both the good as well as the bad in the system and make the best of it?

Do not make me out to be an apologist for this government and its decisions!

2sides2everystory

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Have you not noticed the missing voice in these discussions - the voice of all those parents (and students) from normal families who don't have many thousands of pounds available to them.

Er Hello ONW ... that's me but I did not think I had gone missing ...

Some of us don't trust this government the last one or the next. Some of us have collected reams of evidence that daylight robbery of normal families' wealth occurs daily with the full connivance of successive governments.

I have started reading the Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein). Should I desist?

Oldernotwiser wrote:

...it is the current situation and everybody with an opinion or a role to play has to accept that.

Nope sorry. We don't have to accept it. It is still 10 or 11 months before any money will change hands in the names of our kids.

iclaudius_2

What is rife with every forum and article I've read to date is uncertainty about what this government or successive governments might decide to do with the student loan scheme.

The borrower is slave to the lender.

Best way to avoid all doubt is to stay clear of debt.

Voyager2002

I have read the whole of this discussion, and two points stand out:
1. So long as the system remains as it is at present, the advice given on Moneybox Live is sensible. I am somewhat bemused by the concern expressed at how much graduates might pay once they earn more than 37,000 per year -- that is a good deal more than I have ever earned (and I'm in my fifties; hold three degrees including a doctorate; have managed a programme at an elite research centre in Africa...) and so it seems reasonable to me that someone on that kind of money should face a marginal income tax rate of around fifty per cent. Oh: and I am a parent of students...
2. We don't know what is going to happen to the student loan system in the future, and indeed it could become more like that found in the USA. Certainly, that prospect means that it would be better not to have any student debt than to take on student debt, other things being equal. But other things are not equal, at least not for most people. There is abundant evidence that child poverty damages academic performance. My fear is that some parents might be influenced by this discussion and save money that they ought to spend while their children are young. Money saved to cover university expenses will be of little use if the children face the disadvantages that are associated with poverty; do not perform sufficiently well at school to get places at reasonable universities; or even do arrive at university but without the habits of mind and general knowledge that are needed for a successful university career.

2sides2everystory

iclaudius wrote:

What is rife with every forum and article I've read to date is uncertainty about what this government or successive governments might decide to do with the student loan scheme.

Yes iclaudius, and that is a very big question indeed, especially when the writing is clearly on the wall in the US. Voyager2002 alludes to it too.

I mean did you ever think you would hear a US President assuring the world today that the US 'Super Committee' meeting failed but that the US is not going to default just yet, and they've got a year to sort themselves out or else?

A day when Cameron and Clegg don safety boots and helmets to walk into a show home and announce free public owned land for developers to build houses but the developers can't even say when, where or how many?

And at the same time the government press office suggests Mortgage Guarantee Indemnities will be backed by the government - none of them have any clue that such indemnities sunk one of best UK insurance companies in the late 80s/early 90s when people could with such indemnities borrow 3.5x main salary and 1.5x second salary ... Wooo ! These boys haven't a clue what they are tinkering with, and some of you guys are still suggesting our kids sign their names to uncertain loans bigger than the costprice of many houses ?