The hidden small print in the Autumn Statement

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Are you sure that is what they are outraged about? I heard that they were outraged at a retroactive change to the terms by which they agreed to pay it back ...

total nonsense faux outrage.

try asking a student or ex student how the loans system works : most are too innumerate to know what a percentage is, let alone the fine details

danothy

martinsurrey wrote: »

and there is another life lesson.

Always read the small print before you sign anything.

The terms and conditions will have stated that the repayment thresholds would be variable and set by the Gov, so the terms have not changed, its just they didn't read the terms in the first place...

Or alternatively, they read the terms and took on board the repeated commitments made by the government to continue the uprating of the repayment threshold in line with average earnings. Seems to me that there's plenty of justification for outrage about going back on a repeatedly stated course of action.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Or alternatively, they read the terms and took on board the repeated commitments made by the government to continue the uprating of the repayment threshold in line with average earnings. Seems to me that there's plenty of justification for outrage about going back on a repeatedly stated course of action.

I doubt that a single student would have made a different decision about accepting the loan had they know it would have been calculated on a fixed earning of 21k pa (like all the loans between 2000 and 2012 were based on fixed earning of 15k).

Fella

danothy wrote: »

Are you sure that is what they are outraged about?

Yes.

However I am sure that once they've left University & begun paying taxes they will spend the next 50 years complaining about how unfair student loans are & campaigning for taxpayers to foot more of the bill.

chewmylegoff

thequant wrote: »

At some point the lower income tax threshold is going to meet the student loan repayment threshold.

At that point someone is going to have to admit that the basic rate of income tax is now 29%.

Usually the repayment of a loan is not considered to be tax. You seem to be ignoring that the student has received the benefit of a loan in the first place.

chewmylegoff

A far more important piece of detail in the small print, I am sure you will all agree, is the withdrawal of free childcare for 3-4 year olds from families where both parents work and one earns over £100k from 2017.

By my back of the envelope calculation this means that a person earning £130k with 2 kids in this age range will be worse off than someone earning £100k with the same ages children.

Given than I earn more than £100k but less than £130k and have twins who will turn 3 in 2018, I am going to have to do some michaels style taxable income management, quite possibly involving taking a month off unpaid so I can get my middle class welfare. At least the kids will be in nursery so I can relax on the sofa.

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

A far more important piece of detail in the small print, I am sure you will all agree, is the withdrawal of free childcare for 3-4 year olds from families where both parents work and one earns over £100k from 2017.

By my back of the envelope calculation this means that a person earning £130k with 2 kids in this age range will be worse off than someone earning £100k with the same ages children.

Given than I earn more than £100k but less than £130k and have twins who will turn 3 in 2018, I am going to have to do some michaels style taxable income management, quite possibly involving taking a month off unpaid so I can get my middle class welfare. At least the kids will be in nursery so I can relax on the sofa.

I take it your bit of the state is not looking at a 50% reduction in 'admin costs' over the next 4 years.....

martinsurrey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

A far more important piece of detail in the small print, I am sure you will all agree, is the withdrawal of free childcare for 3-4 year olds from families where both parents work and one earns over £100k from 2017.

By my back of the envelope calculation this means that a person earning £130k with 2 kids in this age range will be worse off than someone earning £100k with the same ages children.

Given than I earn more than £100k but less than £130k and have twins who will turn 3 in 2018, I am going to have to do some michaels style taxable income management, quite possibly involving taking a month off unpaid so I can get my middle class welfare. At least the kids will be in nursery so I can relax on the sofa.

Looking at it its only the extended childcare that is being limited, and the tax free childcare upto £2k (for now), so that's 15 hour per child per week missing, so about one full time child place with 2 kids.

that's £12k a year and at a marginal tax rate of 62% above £100k and 42% above £120k, you're right, thats £31k you need to earn to be better off...

Earning £99,999 is better than earning £130,000... on childcare alone.

Makes the withdrawal of child benefit look like a drop in the ocean!

Jon_B_2

Another middle class beater was the postponement of the diesel 3% company car tax supplement abolishment that was meant to come into play in April 2016. Not surprising, but a killer all the while.

Problem when a government commits to not playing around with the three key taxes is that they have to make quiet but punishable changes elsewhere.

Whisper it, but forget the working classes - the middle classes are taking quite the battering from Osborne.