£100,000 of student loan debt. Young crippled by debt burden

sheffield_lad

Idiophreak wrote: »

It's not a *great* deal, overall...They don't pay much because they're not earning much. Most people have aspirations in life beyond minimising their loan repayments.

ok tell us your earning potential and lets start looking £23k was your starting salary you tell me what you 'expect' to start on.

grizzly1911

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They are providing loans because they are charging tuition fees.

Why do you think this is suddenly enabling poorer people to educate themselves?

You appear to be hopelessly confused by tuition fees, which didn't used to be charged, and living expenses, which used to be a combination of a loan and a grant.

Nothing about the new regime is encouraging anyone from a mid to low income background to go anywhere other than the benefits office.

If you come from a low income family a greater proportion of the cost will be covered by grants that are not repayable.

Quite frankly I don't see why parental/family income should be taken into account at all. If university education is really that good, all should be able to achieve similarly good salaries, therefore they should all be assessed in an equal manner. I don't see why my son or daughter should effectively subsidise others when they are all starting from ground zero.

Idiophreak

howee wrote: »

ok tell us your earning potential and lets start looking £23k was your starting salary you tell me what you 'expect' to start on.

Graduates in my company start between 30 and 32k, but that's not really the point...or maybe it is.

So, if you take £23k as being below average (which I guess it is, that was my graduate wage 8 years ago...) and a total repayment of your 32k. Then you put in a new average (let's say 28k?) and a high (34k) (assuming out-of-London wages...)

Your range is something like 32k - 62k - 98k

So is the angle we should sell this on
"Get a mediocre starting wage, only manage average pay rises for your whole career, pray inflation stays at a record low and you'll probably not have to pay it all back!"

Like I said, doesn't sound like a *great* deal...

Idiophreak

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Quite frankly I don't see why parental/family income should be taken into account at all. If university education is really that good, all should be able to achieve similarly good salaries, therefore they should all be assessed in an equal manner. I don't see why my son or daughter should effectively subsidise others when they are all starting from ground zero.

Couldn't agree more. I've no idea why an 18 year old *adult*, taking a *loan* should get more or less depending on their parents' income. I know some people who didn't even talk to their parents once they turned 18 - but were still entitled to only minimum support because of the parents' earnings. Really messed up.

If the government want to make uni an equal opportunity for all, they should do just that - make it equal!

sheffield_lad

Idiophreak wrote: »

Graduates in my company start between 30 and 32k, but that's not really the point...or maybe it is.

Like I said, doesn't sound like a *great* deal...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-finance-calculator

have you actually done the math?

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You receive 10 forum kudos points for right wing self reliance.

But you lose 11 forum kudos points for having children at all.

Sorry ruggedtoast, having children is more valuable than money, forum kudos or any other comparitive factor you may wish to use.

That said, we are finished and happy with the two we have.

Certainly no plans for more.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I personally think it should just be a straight collection as a tax through PAYE, perhaps with a slight premium rate.

The government can't o that as it is desperate to get the debt of the balance sheet and into an individuals name, effectively massaging the books. Fine and dandy until they start writing off the unpaid loans.

I do find it ironic that the top rate of tax is 45% and there are complaints about it whereas graduates on the new scheme, who manage to obtain worthwhile positions will be paying that rate all too soon. ( Salary>£42k, student loan 9% on £21K - 4.5% effective additional tax, simplistic and not entirely correct I know.)

interesting to note that the coalition believe (passionatley) that
it's right and fair that a grauate earning over 42k pays marginal deductions of

40% (tax ) + 2% (NI) + 9% student loan i.e. 51%

whereas a person earning a million will almost certainly leave the country and take their skills elsewhere because their marginal rate of tax is

50% (tax) + 2% (NI) = 52%

what a difference 1% makes!

Idiophreak

howee wrote: »

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-finance-calculator

have you actually done the math?

...Have you?

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Sorry ruggedtoast, having children is more valuable than money, forum kudos or any other comparitive factor you may wish to use.

That said, we are finished and happy with the two we have.

Certainly no plans for more.

I agree but thats not a popular view around here ime. Especially when it comes to subsidising other people's (which I also dont mind within reason).

sheffield_lad

Folk never want to pay for anything even if its value for money I am not sure how much the public understand student 'tax's'

Do most of the public know that if a student comes out of work they don't have to pay while being out of work?

Do they know it comes out at source PAYE?

Do they know it does not effect their credit score or chances of buying a house?


EDIT come to think of it most students don't know all this either lol