Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Eesha
    • By MSE Eesha 7th Feb 16, 7:46 PM
    • 120Posts
    • 29Thanks
    MSE Eesha
    David Cameron snubs my retrospective student loan hike open letter
    • #1
    • 7th Feb 16, 7:46 PM
    David Cameron snubs my retrospective student loan hike open letter 7th Feb 16 at 7:46 PM
    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.
Page 1
    • Ian Goldby
    • By Ian Goldby 10th Feb 16, 7:48 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Ian Goldby
    • #2
    • 10th Feb 16, 7:48 PM
    I'm not surprised
    • #2
    • 10th Feb 16, 7:48 PM
    I am not the slightest bit surprised. The Tories are determined to get this through and there's no significant opposition or news coverage so they will do so.

    I wrote to my local MP (Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP) while the consultation period was still open. He forwarded my letter to the minister responsible, and then nothing happened for weeks. Finally I got a reply saying that the consultation period had now closed, and therefore my letter could not be taken into account.

    Of course, the reply didn't even have the courtesy to address the points I had raised.

    What a complete farce. (That's being polite about it.)
    • minislim
    • By minislim 11th Feb 16, 10:23 AM
    • 340 Posts
    • 207 Thanks
    minislim
    • #3
    • 11th Feb 16, 10:23 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Feb 16, 10:23 AM
    was a bit david cameron fan whilst he was in the coalition government. but they way he's going about things now as a majority government.
    oh dear!

    you're loosing support thick and fast and if he's not careful Corbyn and his loony bunch will slip back in to no 10 to mess things up again!

    even his own mother and aunt have come out and say enough is enough!
    • d4zza
    • By d4zza 11th Feb 16, 12:59 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    d4zza
    • #4
    • 11th Feb 16, 12:59 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Feb 16, 12:59 PM
    I don't know if I'm missing something here.


    The situation as it appears to me is that should a student (or former student more specifically) earns above the threshold then they pay back 9% of whatever they earn. As they earn more, they pay back more which surely means it clears quicker. If earnings don't go up but remain above the threshold then it appears to me that they continue paying the same amount.


    This change here looks to me that the only effect anywhere would be that a student would stop paying if their earnings didn't rise but the threshold did then go above said earnings, and surely this means it'd take longer to pay off??


    I can understand the moral issue of mis-trust, but other than that, I just don't see the problem and personally think there's bigger battles to be fought.


    Note - I am declaring I may not fully understand student loans and how they get paid back, so please go easy on me if it's not as it seems to me.
    • Ed-1
    • By Ed-1 11th Feb 16, 1:14 PM
    • 2,647 Posts
    • 1,421 Thanks
    Ed-1
    • #5
    • 11th Feb 16, 1:14 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Feb 16, 1:14 PM
    I don't know if I'm missing something here.


    The situation as it appears to me is that should a student (or former student more specifically) earns above the threshold then they pay back 9% of whatever they earn. As they earn more, they pay back more which surely means it clears quicker. If earnings don't go up but remain above the threshold then it appears to me that they continue paying the same amount.


    This change here looks to me that the only effect anywhere would be that a student would stop paying if their earnings didn't rise but the threshold did then go above said earnings, and surely this means it'd take longer to pay off??


    I can understand the moral issue of mis-trust, but other than that, I just don't see the problem and personally think there's bigger battles to be fought.


    Note - I am declaring I may not fully understand student loans and how they get paid back, so please go easy on me if it's not as it seems to me.
    Originally posted by d4zza
    There's 2 things that you misunderstand. The first is that only 9% of earnings above the threshold (not 9% of total earnings) are taken.

    The second is that remaining balances are written off after 30 years. So for many, they won't repay all of what they borrowed before it is cancelled. Paying more every year therefore means paying more in total.

    That said, the 21000 threshold is so high in relation to average earnings that it is completely reasonable to keep it at that level for the time being (as the repayment threshold can be changed in the same way as a tax threshold can be changed). It's not as if it's going to place any graduate in poverty is it.

    There is another student loan repayment threshold currently in operation which stands at 17,335 (for those who started courses pre-2012). This threshold was kept at 15,000 for 7 years from 2005 to 2012 and then when the one-off increase to 21,000 recommendation came in the Browne review, still wasn't increased to 21,000. It was only uprated with inflation each year starting 2012. So I think it's fair to wait for this threshold to reach 21,000 before increasing the 21,000 further (which is David Willetts' recommendation).
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,737Posts Today

7,652Users online

Martin's Twitter