MSE News: Autumn Statement 2015: Hidden hike in student loan repayment a 'disgrace'
Options
Comments
-
No - I did not imply that
So the law is there just to encourage people to go through the motions is it? What about democracy? Shouldn't a 95% opinion against count for something in your idea of fairness?
Just how closely did you follow this fiasco at the time Callum? I followed it very closely. Yes, they did make this commitment and furthermore, they drove home the more favourable repayment conditions as a selling point. They were terrified that the threefold hike in tuition fees would cause a huge drop in student numbers, so this WAS their ONLY selling point. They approached and recruited people to spread the message that despite the fee hikes, graduates would be so much better off under this new system. People like Martin Lewis were DIRECTLY approached by the government and asked to spread this message (I bet he feels somewhat exploited now!). And of course it was a vote swinger!
They wanted to keep student numbers up because if a trebling of the tuition fees had caused a huge collapse in student numbers, the government would have been embarrassed. You see they DO want more people in HE (although they'd rather someone else paid for it) - it's all part of the ego trip that countries compete with each other to be the biggest and the best...and competing to produce bigger numbers of more highly educated people is no different. Besides, what would the result of collapsing student numbers have been? British universities in crisis...some having to close.....lecturers losing their jobs....and a whole load of young people with nothing else to do on their hands. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to answer that one really. But as far as them WANTING it to be cost neutral and not to be of any benefit to the taxpayer, I don't think that was their intention at all. In hindsight, I think the reason that they ignored the warnings that it WOULD be cost neutral is because they knew that they could give backword at a later date. I am accusing the government of deliberately tricking people (by making false commitments) at the time the new framework for increased student loans came in.
You asked "Would your son have refused to go to university if he knew this then?"
The question you should have asked is whether a person would have refused to go to university in the UK if he knew this then (since these rules only apply to people choosing to study in the UK). And my answer is YES, I believe more people would have considered other options. My eldest son said he'd have gone to university in the UK if the tuition loans were set at £3,000 but not at £9,000....so he went off to study his Batchelors at a top university in the Netherlands for an annual tuition fee of around £1500 instead. Don't presume that loan terms and conditions don't matter for everyone. They jolly well do!
Yes, this is the only statement I'd agree with you on!
Yes you did. You may not have meant to, but you specifically stated you think some would work elsewhere because they could get more money.
Basically, yes. And no, the opinion of a consultation shouldn't mean much in a democracy - the respondents don't represent the country and huge numbers have a vested interest.
Utter rubbish. If a tripling of the fees wouldn't put people off then a small increase in repayment terms won't....
No that's not the question I should have asked as it's not the information I wanted. Talking to a brick wall would be more satisfying... For the FOURTH AND FINAL TIME, would THIS change have resulted in them refusing to go to university in the UK after planning to do so. Not that I was talking to you anyway given the scenario isn't relevant to you...0 -
callum9999 wrote: »Yes you did. You may not have meant to, but you specifically stated you think some would work elsewhere because they could get more money.
Basically, yes. And no, the opinion of a consultation shouldn't mean much in a democracy - the respondents don't represent the country and huge numbers have a vested interest.
Utter rubbish. If a tripling of the fees wouldn't put people off then a small increase in repayment terms won't....
No that's not the question I should have asked as it's not the information I wanted. Talking to a brick wall would be more satisfying... For the FOURTH AND FINAL TIME, would THIS change have resulted in them refusing to go to university in the UK after planning to do so. Not that I was talking to you anyway given the scenario isn't relevant to you...
I said that people may chose to work elsewhere (i.e. even in another under-remunerated capacity) where they wouldn't incur so much debt. Don't you understand the difference?
Basically yes...and no? My God, you're not a politician are you?
And it's not "utter rubbish". One retrospective change crosses a rubicon. Who knows what other retrospective changes will be made. Can you personally guarantee that they won't make more? Can you personally guarantee that the £21,000 threshold won't be frozen again until it reaches the point where (due to inflation) that this becomes the minimum wage income for full time employment - in which case every graduate in full time employment may be paying back their loans for degrees which unfortunately did not better their career prospects? Can you guarantee that Callum?
And why is a general question not relevant for me to answer as a mother of two young people with their whole futures ahead of them? Do you not think that I listen to their concerns, their reasoning behind the choices they make?
I think the trouble with you is that you'd rather address your points to people who don't answer back!0 -
I said that people may chose to work elsewhere (i.e. even in another under-remunerated capacity) where they wouldn't incur so much debt. Don't you understand the difference?
Basically yes...and no? My God, you're not a politician are you?
And it's not "utter rubbish". One retrospective change crosses a rubicon. Who knows what other retrospective changes will be made. Can you personally guarantee that they won't make more? Can you personally guarantee that the £21,000 threshold won't be frozen again until it reaches the point where (due to inflation) that this becomes the minimum wage income for full time employment - in which case every graduate in full time employment may be paying back their loans for degrees which unfortunately did not better their career prospects? Can you guarantee that Callum?
And why is a general question not relevant for me to answer as a mother of two young people with their whole futures ahead of them? Do you not think that I listen to their concerns, their reasoning behind the choices they make?
I think the trouble with you is that you'd rather address your points to people who don't answer back!
Your post specifically said earn more.
No I'm not a politician and no I didn't say that anyway. You have a real problem with reading what you want to read instead of what's there. The no and the yes are answers to different questions.
Yes I'll personally guarantee it won't be frozen until 21k is minimum wage.
No, it's not relevant because you're refusing to answer the question and instead answering questions you feel I should be asking (and you have the audacity to question if I'm a politican!?).0 -
Callum, you misquote me. I said "and when they've decided that they can earn just as much (maybe more) in a non-degree requiring trade instead." which, if you follow logic through to its end point means that they may equally decide upon another reasonably low paid career which does not require a degree. And actually for the same GROSS income, you WOULD be better off in a career without a degree because you'd take home more of your pay.
And if you take the time to actually read the government's response and decision, it says that it will keep the threshold at £21,000 until 2021...after which they have only committed to "reviewing it". So out of the window goes the promise of ever uprating the loan threshold in line with national average earnings.
You know what? You can personally guarantee DIDDLY SQUAT!
PS And you DO know that people planning to go to a UK university have the right to change their plans. Indeed many HAVE to change their plans if they do not get the grades they require on results day. Who are YOU to determine that no-one might change their mind and go to study in Europe instead. Ha, and you say I exercise audacity....0 -
Callum, you misquote me. I said "and when they've decided that they can earn just as much (maybe more) in a non-degree requiring trade instead." which, if you follow logic through to its end point means that they may equally decide upon another reasonably low paid career which does not require a degree. And actually for the same GROSS income, you WOULD be better off in a career without a degree because you'd take home more of your pay.
And if you take the time to actually read the government's response and decision, it says that it will keep the threshold at £21,000 until 2021...after which they have only committed to "reviewing it". So out of the window goes the promise of ever uprating the loan threshold in line with national average earnings.
You know what? You can personally guarantee DIDDLY SQUAT!
PS And you DO know that people planning to go to a UK university have the right to change their plans. Indeed many HAVE to change their plans if they do not get the grades they require on results day. Who are YOU to determine that no-one might change their mind and go to study in Europe instead. Ha, and you say I exercise audacity....
I also said you're unable to read. I hoped pointing that out would make you start reading properly but if you're not going to then this will be much easier if you just save me the effort and write my posts for me.
(Hint: I've never even hinted students don't have the right to change their plans - what an utterly bizarre thing to come out with...)0 -
Callum, for the record - I can read perfectly well...but given that you misquote me, I'd take that speck out of your own eye.
And by asking the question "Would your son have refused to go to university if he knew this then?" to another poster on here, certainly implies that you'd expect the common answer to be "No" (in other words, you would not expect that this would have changed his plans). Do you wish to add another interpretation on the reason for your question by way of wriggling out of that one?
I'm done wasting my breath on you.0 -
what I find amazing is that people are surprised. this bunch have been trying to settle the debts of the private sector crash off the backs of the sick, disabled and young for their entire term.
its no surprise, the only actual surprise is that people didn't think it was likely...0 -
what I find amazing is that people are surprised. this bunch have been trying to settle the debts of the private sector crash off the backs of the sick, disabled and young for their entire term.
its no surprise, the only actual surprise is that people didn't think it was likely...
Maybe I for one was a bit too trusting. A government whacks up tuition fees and recruits a task force to drive home the message of these so called "cast iron guarantees"of what the terms and conditions will be.....and you know it being sold as a "loan", I had no idea that they weren't beholden to the same rules as the banks!
With increases in tax, a person can (if they decide) just to "up sticks" and go to another country. With this grotesque amalgam...which has the features of a loan and a tax to suit the government, there is no legal escape!
So yes, my hand is up. I admit to being naive...and trusting of the claptrap and the lies on which this loan product was sold to people! Guess I should have known that students are an easy target to shaft.0 -
So how many students wouldn't have taken the loan out had they known that the repayments would start to kick in on earnings above £21k rather than earnings above £21k + X%?
They took the loan out because they needed the funding.
thats irelevant
would you expect your bank/builiding society to make retrospective changes to your loan conditions or because you needed the loan that it is ok0 -
Maybe I for one was a bit too trusting. A government whacks up tuition fees and recruits a task force to drive home the message of these so called "cast iron guarantees"of what the terms and conditions will be.....and you know it being sold as a "loan", I had no idea that they weren't beholden to the same rules as the banks!
With increases in tax, a person can (if they decide) just to "up sticks" and go to another country. With this grotesque amalgam...which has the features of a loan and a tax to suit the government, there is no legal escape!
So yes, my hand is up. I admit to being naive...and trusting of the claptrap and the lies on which this loan product was sold to people! Guess I should have known that students are an easy target to shaft.
Even Martin spins it as a tax rather than a loan ...
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes#gradtax
... though I suspect he might be more cautious about joining any Government "taskforce" in the future!
The upside of this is that grads who can afford it will pay less of the extortionate interest rates by paying off their "loan" faster.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards