Voll Blau Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I wouldn't feel worse off if I could now get 8.2k whilst at uni instead of 7.5k. I mean it's typical of students, one minute they want more in maintenance to help them live at uni and then when that happens, they complain. The poor get plent of help so they shouldn't be put off uni at all, if they are then they're morons. It's the people with household incomes of around 42k that need a bit more giving to them Very harsh. Not every 16/17-year-old is as worldly wise as you seem to be for your age. As much as you can explain to them the benefits of a university education weighed against the value of the loan and how it's repayed (I've done this with several people I know in that age bracket), they're still going to have huge doubts about whether they'll get a career at the end of it which makes it worthwhile, especially as that kind of ambition may be completely removed from their own family's experiences of the world of work. The grants system has been abused and misused by some in the past (again, I blame New Labour for getting the ball rolling on that), but better regulation of the system would do more to redress the boom and bust years of "everyone can have a degree" rather than outright putting good, academically-gifted children off going.
Freesolo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I do not get this. Surely now you do not have to pay anything back until you earn over 21k, that's a very good thing. When I went to Uni under Labour I had to start paying back my loan when I got a job in a call centre at 15k.........ridiculous. Also, I question whether as many people need to go to University, we need more on the job workplace training. I am not sure that a nation of Sociologists or Psychologists is going to get the economy booming, more trades, more engineers, skilled jobs yes. Tax credits since day one have always been a stupid idea, a vote winner for Labour. Basically you are taking money with one hand and giving it back with the other. The best option is not to tax the low paid at all/and or incentivise businesses to pay. I would go one step further and offer a further rate cuts to businesses paying higher than the 'living wage'. So you went to Uni to get a job in a call centre on £15k? you could have just got the job in the call centre and saved yourself a lot of money. Incase you didn't notice University Tuition Fees skyrocketed when the Conservatives came in so they make it sound better by raising the Wage to 21k but are you paying interest on this loan? does that mean when you reach £21k your loan is more
MiniFox Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I wouldn't feel worse off if I could now get 8.2k whilst at uni instead of 7.5k. I mean it's typical of students, one minute they want more in maintenance to help them live at uni and then when that happens, they complain. The poor get plent of help so they shouldn't be put off uni at all, if they are then they're morons. It's the people with household incomes of around 42k that need a bit more giving to them I'd agree they shouldn't be put off, but I think it's the idea of getting in more debt or not being able to afford general living, something lower income students would struggle with more. One of the arguments against the change was that low income students would not be able to afford the debt afterwards, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked you didn't go uni to come out and get a bad job just because you came from a low income family, you're expecting to get a similar standard a job to anyone else with the same sorts of qualifications and experiences, they would also have that debt, so whats the issue? I don't think too many students will be put off once they look into it more.
Ollie93 Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I'd agree they shouldn't be put off, but I think it's the idea of getting in more debt or not being able to afford general living, something lower income students would struggle with more. One of the arguments against the change was that low income students would not be able to afford the debt afterwards, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked you didn't go uni to come out and get a bad job just because you came from a low income family, you're expecting to get a similar standard a job to anyone else with the same sorts of qualifications and experiences, they would also have that debt, so whats the issue? I don't think too many students will be put off once they look into it more. This is the problem. Everyone see's grants have been "scrapped" and goes mental.
RobHawk Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Interesting response from the National Association of Student Money Advisers (NASMA) regarding the loss of maintenance grants: “NASMA are disappointed by the UK Governments decision to scrap Maintenance Grants for English students from 2016/17. Whilst we are pleased to see the potential of more money being provided directly to students to help meet their cost of living we are extremely concerned at the impact this will have on access rates for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The ethos of this policy seems to be ‘the lower your income, the more debt you can have’ which contradicts the widening participation strategy that many have worked so hard to implement within Higher Education. This alongside the prospect of Tuition Fees rising with inflation means that student debt will continue to rise to astronomic levels. Under the current repayment system, it would suggest that the majority of these loans will be wiped 30 years after a student graduates which suggests that the future repayment arrangements will change drastically in order to make this change financially viable and worthwhile for the UK Government. NASMA are therefore keen to see more detail on this proposal, but believe that the student loan repayment method should not be altered after a student has taken the loan. We would therefore urge the UK Government to be more transparent about the long term future of these repayment terms so that students can make an informed choice before starting University. At a time when the UK government preaches about austerity, it seems to contradict itself when it comes to the lives of UK students and the normality of debt it encourages young people to enter. With this increase in student debt and having already lost ring fenced Hardship Funding, NASMA hopes the UK Government will commit to helping students learn to manage their money both within their education and beyond. This should further promote and support the importance of the financial literacy schemes and high quality information, advice and guidance our members provide within Higher Education across the UK on a daily basis.”
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 So you went to Uni to get a job in a call centre on £15k? you could have just got the job in the call centre and saved yourself a lot of money. Incase you didn't notice University Tuition Fees skyrocketed when the Conservatives came in so they make it sound better by raising the Wage to 21k but are you paying interest on this loan? does that mean when you reach £21k your loan is more My first job yes, it took a while to get into my chosen field, until someone gave me a chance. As you have the age old thing where you are competing against people who have 15 years experience in the role. In hindsight I am sure myself and others would have benefitted more from on the job training and yes, would have been a lot better off. But at the time under a Labour government, everyone had to go to University regardless, even if they wanted to be a plasterer! Interest has been applied at RPI inflation rate to student loans for many years since 2001, in reality there are probably a lot of people who never pay then back. Although its classified as a 'loan' its really a graduate tax. If you never earn over 21k, it will never have to be repaid. When you do pay, it come out of your wage in a percentage of how much you earn, the more you earn the more you pay........which to me if you get a degree and a good job that pays well, that's pretty fair!
Freesolo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 My first job yes, it took a while to get into my chosen field, until someone gave me a chance. As you have the age old thing where you are competing against people who have 15 years experience in the role. In hindsight I am sure myself and others would have benefitted more from on the job training and yes, would have been a lot better off. But at the time under a Labour government, everyone had to go to University regardless, even if they wanted to be a plasterer! Interest has been applied at RPI inflation rate to student loans for many years since 2001, in reality there are probably a lot of people who never pay then back. Although its classified as a 'loan' its really a graduate tax. If you never earn over 21k, it will never have to be repaid. When you do pay, it come out of your wage in a percentage of how much you earn, the more you earn the more you pay........which to me if you get a degree and a good job that pays well, that's pretty fair! This is the problem If I go to Uni to get a degree I am going to have a career that i am focussed on moving into when I leave and I'm sure My pay would be over 21k within a year or two. I can remember when i left school in 98 you got a apprenticeship in engineering with some half decent GCSE's and all the so called smart kids did your A levels and went to Uni.. Now you have people turning up to get a apprenticeship and they have 10 As and A levels and have been to uni. Its not right
Rincewind Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946?ocid=socialflow_facebook Budget Calculator to see how it will affect you. No difference but there is no section for retired people. Unless the pension increases or decreases I will only be affected by my everyday cost of living changes. Not commented on the budget because as I do not know the full details. So I will leave it to others.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 This is the problem If I go to Uni to get a degree I am going to have a career that i am focussed on moving into when I leave and I'm sure My pay would be over 21k within a year or two. I can remember when i left school in 98 you got a apprenticeship in engineering with some half decent GCSE's and all the so called smart kids did your A levels and went to Uni.. Now you have people turning up to get a apprenticeship and they have 10 As and A levels and have been to uni. Its not right I think the whole thing about being smart and needing to go to University is a little misguided. Smart people can do other jobs, there are a lot of skilled jobs that would perhaps benefit from more in work training. It depends on the Apprenticeship but some jobs absolutely need smart people, its wrong that the poorly quality candidates were being pushed into some skilled jobs. My point is that under Labour you started paying back at 15k, you can get 15k working in a supermarket! so that level was a lot harsher, even though not allowing for inflation the total was less.
Freesolo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 My point is that under Labour you started paying back at 15k, you can get 15k working in a supermarket! so that level was a lot harsher, even though not allowing for inflation the total was less. How much was your student loan and in what year did you go Uni if you don't mind me asking ? Also the rate of inflation and the rise in tuition fees are are not even remotely close.
Ollie93 Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 This is the problem If I go to Uni to get a degree I am going to have a career that i am focussed on moving into when I leave and I'm sure My pay would be over 21k within a year or two. I can remember when i left school in 98 you got a apprenticeship in engineering with some half decent GCSE's and all the so called smart kids did your A levels and went to Uni.. Now you have people turning up to get a apprenticeship and they have 10 As and A levels and have been to uni. Its not right But like foxin_mad said, some smarted people will benefit apprenticeship schemes. Why is it that people think that only stupid people should do "trade" jobs or apprenticeships? At the same time, i'm studying Civil Engineering at uni and there are some of the cleverest people I've met on my degree, but they have no common sense and no interpersonal skills, so they have struggled during their placement year. Where as the likes of my self and others I know have thrived.
Freesolo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 But like foxin_mad said, some smarted people will benefit apprenticeship schemes. Why is it that people think that only stupid people should do "trade" jobs or apprenticeships? At the same time, i'm studying Civil Engineering at uni and there are some of the cleverest people I've met on my degree, but they have no common sense and no interpersonal skills, so they have struggled during their placement year. Where as the likes of my self and others I know have thrived. Yes of course you can learn learn more on the job in a month than years in uni. Alot of the time the brightest people are not the most social, although this is not always the case but sitting in class since you have been 4 years old all the way to where you are now does not teach the social skills that are necessary for some people to move into the modern fast paced workplace
Guest Kopfkino Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 So the ones who go to uni to become doctors/dentists etc who are from households with incomes of £15,000 or less don't need any more? I don't get all this student bashing, it is always from those who didn't go or went and had a miserable time. No I don't think they do, or at least it's not a priority. If we take a dentistry student at Birmingham with a household income under 15k, they get 7.5k from the government and a further 2k from the uni itself through a bursary. If they had a household income of 43k, then they'd get 5.7k from the government and nothing else. A friend who was at Birmingham this year paid 4.5k for self catered accom, so I don't think it's wrong to say that students with a household income of 15000 are less of a priority for giving more to.
The Blur Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I do not get this. Surely now you do not have to pay anything back until you earn over 21k, that's a very good thing. When I went to Uni under Labour I had to start paying back my loan when I got a job in a call centre at 15k.........ridiculous. Also, I question whether as many people need to go to University, we need more on the job workplace training. I am not sure that a nation of Sociologists or Psychologists is going to get the economy booming, more trades, more engineers, skilled jobs yes. Tax credits since day one have always been a stupid idea, a vote winner for Labour. Basically you are taking money with one hand and giving it back with the other. The best option is not to tax the low paid at all/and or incentivise businesses to pay. I would go one step further and offer a further rate cuts to businesses paying higher than the 'living wage'. Voll Blau has explained it best for me- not everybody are savvy enough to understand pro and cons of student loans/grants etc, I was drawing out my life experience as I have knew people from poorer backgrounds who was put off going to universities after the rise of tuition fees. There are genuinely people who just are not that keen to get in even debt after university and to pay back yet more interest even that repayment terms are very reasonable as many posters have pointed out. You still acquire interest even if you are not in employment or are not earning enough to repay the loan back. I have to admit though, the policy itself is a rather good idea- I was just concerned about its effect on widening the division between the rich and the poor even more.
Ollie93 Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 No I don't think they do, or at least it's not a priority. If we take a dentistry student at Birmingham with a household income under 15k, they get 7.5k from the government and a further 2k from the uni itself through a bursary. If they had a household income of 43k, then they'd get 5.7k from the government and nothing else. A friend who was at Birmingham this year paid 4.5k for self catered accom, so I don't think it's wrong to say that students with a household income of 15000 are less of a priority for giving more to. Im not sure every student under that threshold gets that bursary do they? And then that's all the money they have, their parents/parent financially cannot give them a penny towards anything. Whereas im sure if the parents/parent is earning 43k they can afford £100 here and there over the course. 4.5k a year for self catered accom? An average 44 week tennancy agreement would be £102 a week, that's fairly expensive. They could of lived somehwere cheaper than that if they wanted to save money.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 How much was your student loan and in what year did you go Uni if you don't mind me asking ? Also the rate of inflation and the rise in tuition fees are are not even remotely close. 2001 owed 16k at the end still owe about 16k now with Interest, do I care......no. Would I care now.....no, it may however make me think if I really needed to go to university, when perhaps I could have gone straight into an apprenticeship and have been earning instead. The annoying thing is when I came out of Uni and got a job, any job in a call centre selling phones, I had to pay £25 a month back. Why, not exactly like I was a big earner. The rises were not related to inflation but, when you consider the greater overall effect inflation had, they may have been necessary to keep universities in business, the public funding was too high. I actually think there should be more done to encourage Scholarships paid for by business, but the tax payer certainly shouldn't be picking up the full fees.
Nalis Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Agree with the limit on child benefit being limited to the first 2 kids of a family. Stops families with no intention of finding work churning out kid after kid sucking resources out of the state.
Frank to be Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Agree with the limit on child benefit being limited to the first 2 kids of a family. Stops families with no intention of finding work churning out kid after kid sucking resources out of the state. It's also effectively a two child policy on the poor. Eugenics by stealth?
Ross-Kemp Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Agree with the limit on child benefit being limited to the first 2 kids of a family. Stops families with no intention of finding work churning out kid after kid sucking resources out of the state.Exactly, I've got one child at the minute, and I'd love to have another, but we simply can't afford to have one.I work full time and partner works part time, unless I was able to provide a good life for my kids, I wouldn't have them.
Strokes Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 It's also effectively a two child policy on the poor. Eugenics by stealth? Even better.
Stadt Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 It's also effectively a two child policy on the poor. Eugenics by stealth?
Rincewind Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Agree with the limit on child benefit being limited to the first 2 kids of a family. Stops families with no intention of finding work churning out kid after kid sucking resources out of the state. Wgat about the familrs that have had three had good well paid jobs then one comes down with MS or caner. Should they be punished for being ill and nothaving a crystal ball?
MiniFox Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Agree with the limit on child benefit being limited to the first 2 kids of a family. Stops families with no intention of finding work churning out kid after kid sucking resources out of the state. There should be some circumstances where families are allowed more, such as parents falling ill (as Rince said) etc. when it comes to the families that intend to not work and have child after child, it's not the parents I feel sorry for, it's the children, as if anything they're the ones who will suffer.
Strokes Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 There should be some circumstances where families are allowed more, such as parents falling ill (as Rince said) etc. when it comes to the families that intend to not work and have child after child, it's not the parents I feel sorry for, it's the children, as if anything they're the ones who will suffer.Perhaps this what charities are for, exceptions.
Freesolo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 There should be some circumstances where families are allowed more, such as parents falling ill (as Rince said) etc. when it comes to the families that intend to not work and have child after child, it's not the parents I feel sorry for, it's the children, as if anything they're the ones who will suffer. Some people should be forced to get the "Snip" seriously you see mums walking around with 5 kid's all total mutants, you know the kids barely have a chance to better themselves because the parents don't give a shit the mum just keeps shitting kids out because sh doesn't want to work. It's a vicious cycle and they spread like bacteria
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.