I've hired lawyers to investigate judicial reviewing Govt's retrospective student lo
in Martin's blogs & appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the news
28 replies 6.7K views
MSE_Eesha MSE StaffMSE Staff
This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.
Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
Read Martin's "I've hired lawyers to investigate judicial reviewing Govt's retrospective student loan hike" Blog.
Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Energy Price Cap change
Martin Lewis on what it means for youMSE News
Best £1 you've ever spent?
Share your most impressive bargainsMSE Forum
New MSE Forum avatars available
Try 'em out nowMSE Forum
Scary numbers! Run away!
Since it's equivilent to salary sacrifice, that's (after tax) £1.18 less net pay per week.
So - who exactly would be paying the shortfall when it isn't repaid? Oh - the taxpayer.
And tax payers.
Far too many people are being pushed into university to get pointless degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving, Breathing for Credit and suchlike.
We need less going, so that the funds available to the remaining students go further and as a result we could perhaps reintroduce grants and bursaries to all, and stop the requirement to actually have students take out loans.
Yes, the taxpayer is still picking up the bill, but not for paying for pointless courses, but useful ones that will result in the students more likely to get higher paying jobs which has the knock on effect of more future taxes from higher paid jobs that they'll get.
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
I'm not affected in the slightest (graduated in 2003 in a useful subject that led me to a good job), and I'm Tory through and through, but i still wrote to my MP about this as I do not like the deceitfulness on display.
Good luck Martin - hope they come to their senses and cave quickly.
The point of the government conducting a consultation is not to implement exactly what those consulted asked for - because those who reply to a consultation tend to have a vested interest. The purpose is to seek alternative opinions and check that there is nothing that you may have missed. If every respondent said "I disagree because this will make me worse off", then I suspect the government had already considered this and decided it wasn't important. If Paul_Herring's calculation is correct I would agree with that conclusion.
I also agree that retrospectively changing the system is not fair. Ultimately though, for the sake of someone earning £22k+ being worse off by £90 a year, getting lawyered-up for a judicial review seems somewhat disproportionate. Whatever the outcome, the only people who stand to gain anything substantial from this judicial review are the judges (paid for by our taxes) and lawyers.
Spikyone. Respondents to consultations are usually representative organisations, charities, think tanks and others not just individuals saying i dont wan tto pay
Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.
In the first year they'd be paying £90 a year more I agree.
In the second year your salary might go up to £23k. You might have expected the threshold to go up to £23k, but it's staying at £21k so that's £180 extra you're paying in the second year.
And it gets worse. Much worse.
They've said they'll freeze it until 2022. You can be sure that _if_ they get away with it they'll keep it frozen beyond that.
So someone who graduates into a £21k salary and gets annual pay rises that match inflation of 3%, after 20 years would be earning £37,928.
If the threshold had increased with inflation, it too would be £37,928 and this person would repay nothing.
But with a frozen threshold they would pay £1,524.
In today's money, that's someone earning £21k having to pay an extra £70 a month.
Also, we've got a Tory government: do you think they really care about ordinary people?
Please post far and wide!
I am happy that they will learn that governments are not to be trusted. The sooner they learn that the better.
Well done Martin. It's nice to see someone keeping their word.
Maybe take the money that is going to be spent on the legal team and invest it into a hardship fund for any student that gets into genuine difficulty with the changes.