ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

I think the NUS at the top are complicit, if not via giving it the thumbs up, by remaining silent during this time when it should be up for discussion again, i.e. before an election. I add another variable to the complicity charge, there is a small chance its leadership is just terrible at raising awareness/politics.
On my twatter travels of late, it is the teachers and ex-students who are more outraged, whilst there are virtually no replies from any current student organisation. The NUS should be ashamed of their self-gagging order.
Andrew McGettigan was actually one of the guys who was setting me straight on some of my more general assumptions on twatter. The thing that infuriates me, other than being full of admiration for such writing on these things way before i become aware, is that after they have written their articles, they think that is it and dont continue raising awareness about it. Maybe they dont have such a personal stake in it, but why not find the time to update on the subject now and try and get it into the election debate somehow. They have the section in the last budget about the reversal of Cable's plan to not sell them to frame an article around, so its a good time to add to the writing on it. It would also open up a timely debate on it before it is too late.

ExMugPunter

Just a quick query..

I have loans from 1994, 1995 and 1996 and apart from the odd payment a few years ago when I was late in deferring, they have never been paid back. I gather that some loans had an agreement to cancel them after 25 (?) years. I don't suppose these would qualify?

Thanks in advance.

fermi

They fall under the same regulations as all the ones from that time, that say;

12. The lender will cancel the borrower’s liability to repay the loan if the borrower—

(a) dies,

(b) is not behind on any repayments under any agreement for a student loan and—

(i) was under the age of 40 when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 50 or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years, whichever is the sooner, or

(ii) was aged 40 or older when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 60, or

(c) if the borrower can show the lender that he gets a disability related benefit and because of his disability is permanently unfit for work.

ExMugPunter

fermi wrote: »

They fall under the same regulations as all the ones from that time, that say;

Excellent thank you.


Just looking at section b(i) and inparticular 'or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years'

I returned to University to do a PGCE in 2010 and took out a student loan for that. I don't suppose you would know if that means that I no longer qualify for that part of the condition or does it mean 25 years after the original loan?

Sorry for the questions!!

anna2007

@ erudioed I didn't know that Andrew McGettigan replied to you on twatter! If anyone was to get stoked about what's stated in the budget, I'd have put money on him. Same goes for Toni Pearce @ NUS, she also gave evidence at the inquiry... what's with the apparent apathy, I don't get it??

Read something in a Telegraph article from yesterday, which immediately made me think the guy commenting had seen erudioed's recent tweets! And if the Torygraph is willing to print it, there's surely hope of getting further media coverage:

I have been made anxious since learning of the threat that the current Conservative government will sell off student loans to private investors, who would hike up the interest repayable on my loan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11544852/Who-says-young-men-dont-care-about-the-election.html

erudioed - would you mind tweeting anyone/everyone connected to the SNP? If you get no response, I'll have to think about abstaining on 7 May

fermi

ExMugPunter wrote: »

Excellent thank you.


Just looking at section b(i) and inparticular 'or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years'

I returned to University to do a PGCE in 2010 and took out a student loan for that. I don't suppose you would know if that means that I no longer qualify for that part of the condition or does it mean 25 years after the original loan?

Sorry for the questions!!

The law defines a student loan for the purposes of that quote I gave as:

“student loan” means a loan made by the Student Loans Company under the Student Loans Act 1990 or the Education (Student Loans) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/made

If any other loan you have was not made under that legislation, then it's existence can't prevent any write off of the original type as far as I can possibly see.

erudioed

No problem Anna, i will go on a frenzy looking for the SNP linked today. I was actually a couple of hours into contacting many Labour Councillors running for office last night before i had to retire for the night...a few bites and retwaats.
The guy in the Telegraph sounds like he knows more than i tweeted, but i like the idea i reached someone, so i will assume he read my tweet and then searched for Andrew McGettigan or Martin Lewis' proper articles on the loan sale . McGettigan didnt seem that surprised it was included stealthily in the budget but i think i was the first he knew of it, cause my tweet got him to reach out to me. I had a bit of a tweetgument with a snotty Lib Dem Cllr in Bristol last night actually who couldnt see the problem with selling student loans.
Right, i should stop, i said i wouldnt go on about it here unless something happens...

fermi

Anyone dealt with something like this?

--> Erudio student loan deferral and Car Salary Sacrifice

cluelessfish

I would guess it works like pensions salary sacrifice.

Employee agrees to lower GROSS INCOME in return employer puts more into company pension.

or in this case I would guess

Employee agrees to lower GROSS INCOME. Employer provides company car.

Key point being lower GROSS INCOME.

If it is good enough for hmrc then it should be good enough for erudio.

If you follow erudios logic then we all end up in the ridiculous situation of having to declaring everything we use at work, just to make sure we are not over deferment threshold.

anna2007

With a salary sacrifice scheme, the employee is exchanging part of their remuneration for a non-cash benefit, e.g. car, pension, childcare voucher, etc. The incentive to both employee and employer is that these schemes are tax efficient, so both save on tax and NI.

Although part of the salary is sacrificed, the employee receives a benefit in kind in return. It makes sense that the benefit in kind is included as gross income, (for example, someone who wasn't able to benefit from such a scheme might have to pay out for childcare, but can't deduct that expense from the gross income declared to Erudio).

If the salary sacrifice isn't detailed on the payslip (I used to do a salary sacrifice for home computer equipment and it was clearly shown as a deduction), it could probably be seen by the amount of tax and NI paid - I think some benefits aren't wholly exempt, and there are also limits on the amount that qualifies for exemption from tax/NI, e.g. £55 per week for Childcare vouchers, any salary sacrifice above that would be subject to tax/NI in the usual way.