Benji Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 I would like to see your sources for the assertion that you will not be able to repay your debts early. This would in fact be illegal, as anyone has the right to repay their debts at anytime, subject to some contractual penalties. I'm not sure if it has been incorporated, but I know the review that started all of this pointed towards a penalty for anyone who repaid it early. The penalty being, I think, that you will have to repay upfront the amount you would have paid had you paid by instalments, effectively paying the interest your trying to avoid. But as I say i'm not sure if it developed into anything more than an idea? I go back to what I said a few weeks ago just after the review. I have yet to see one proposal so far, including the one we've seemingly chosen, that doesn't hurt someone innocently somewhere. Fact of life. I'm just glad I've pre-dated this, selfish I know.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 Tell us fooking why??? PS - Ur so sexy when you swear, snuggle chumps!!
dave the caveman Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 What a fooking load of old shit. You started so well, but quickly turned to ill informed claptrap. Student loans at the moment are subsidised, becuase no one - even the government - can borrow money at the cost of inflation, or as people who understand the concept of inflation call it "free". 2% over inflation is an approximation of the cost of the government borrowings which will fund student debt. It is way less than an individual could borrow for. The purpose of increasing the repayment threshold is not to increase in the interest payable - see above. No one is making any money on the lending. I would like to see your sources for the assertion that you will not be able to repay your debts early. This would in fact be illegal, as anyone has the right to repay their debts at anytime, subject to some contractual penalties. When will you fools stop pedalling the idea that all uni courses will cost £9k? Or even £6k for that matter. No one is going to pay that to do a media course in Stoke are they. FFS use your brains. How can you be sure that not all uni course will cost £9k? The Higher Education Policy Institute seems to think they will. And when will you fools stop pedalling this media and arts course bullshit? A very small percentage of people actually choose those courses, and in theory, if education is to be subsidised by the government then it would seem somewhat strange, in a supposedly world leading country, in the 21st century, to shun cultural studies, unless of course we're heading for some kind of great leap forward. The general aversion to those course on display on this board just reeks of 2nd hand knowledge to be honest. Maybe some of the posters would benefit from doing an arts course - they tend to encourage independent thought. Source on not being able to pay the loan back early... it escapes me somehow. I will keep looking though. Watch this space. You may be correct about the government not making any money off of this, I'm not sure, but my figures still stand. If you are pushed into this trap, you will probably never get out.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 I'm not sure if it has been incorporated, but I know the review that started all of this pointed towards a penalty for anyone who repaid it early. The penalty being, I think, that you will have to repay upfront the amount you would have paid had you paid by instalments, effectively paying the interest your trying to avoid. But as I say i'm not sure if it developed into anything more than an idea? I go back to what I said a few weeks ago just after the review. I have yet to see one proposal so far, including the one we've seemingly chosen, that doesn't hurt someone innocently somewhere. Fact of life. I'm just glad I've pre-dated this, selfish I know. The main problem is going to be convincing people who genuinely want to go and study that it is not a debilitating financial burden to repay the loans from your pay packet.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 How can you be sure that not all uni course will cost £9k? The Higher Education Policy Institute seems to think they will. And when will you fools stop pedalling this media and arts course bullshit? A very small percentage of people actually choose those courses, and in theory, if education is to be subsidised by the government then it would seem somewhat strange, in a supposedly world leading country, in the 21st century, to shun cultural studies, unless of course we're heading for some kind of great leap forward. The general aversion to those course on display on this board just reeks of 2nd hand knowledge to be honest. Maybe some of the posters would benefit from doing an arts course - they tend to encourage independent thought. Source on not being able to pay the loan back early... it escapes me somehow. I will keep looking though. Watch this space. You may be correct about the government not making any money off of this, I'm not sure, but my figures still stand. If you are pushed into this trap, you will probably never get out. Supply and demand my friend. No one will pay it. Pick any less expensive to run course you like at any mediocre university. Media at Stoke may be a great course, just trying to make a point that a course that is cheap to provide and can be run anywhere will not cost £6k a year. Also under these proposal part time study will also qualify for the same assistance, meaning people can chooses to work their way through Uni. Mind you if you think the majority of media or arts graduates, or in fact any graduates are capable of independent thought you will be in for a rude shock should you ever start trying to recruit graduates. Where did you get your 9% effective tax increase from?
l444ry Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8084779/Penalty-for-graduates-who-pay-off-student-loans-early.html Dave might be referring to this article in the Daily Torygraph.
C-man Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 Students who want to pay off their loans early will be hit with a financial penalty. 13:52.
dave the caveman Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 Where did you get your 9% effective tax increase from? Student loan debts are currently taken at 9% above the threshold. Whether that remains the same with the new proposals i'm not sure but I imagine any change will be an increase rather than a decrease. That means you could call it an income tax of 9% above £21k. It's not exactly the same as how income tax is calculated but i'm sure you get my point.
dave the caveman Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 13:52. Interesting... so it's actually inflation + 3%. But the "Interest rate for those on less than £21,000 would remain at zero." Does that zero mean zero or just inflation? This means the debt wouldn't rise before the graduate earns £21k. But assuming a debt of £30k and inflation at 3%, interest would start at £150 per month. In order for £150 to make up 9% of earnings over £21k (or in other words for a graduate to earn enough to keep up with interest - to stop the debt from spiralling) he would have to earn £41k per annum. At which point, the interest rate INCREASES. . This is unbelievable.
Webbo Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 This means the debt wouldn't rise before the graduate earns £21k. But assuming a debt of £30k and inflation at 3%, interest would start at £150 per month. In order for £150 to make up 9% of earnings over £21k (or in other words for a graduate to earn enough to keep up with interest - to stop the debt from spiralling) he would have to earn £41k per annum. At which point, the interest rate INCREASES. . This is unbelievable. Similar to progressive taxation, which is what the left is supposed to believe in.
dave the caveman Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 Similar to progressive taxation, which is what the left is supposed to believe in. Yes but not really and that's not the point. The point is that realistically speaking, a graduate will struggle enourmously to cover the costs of interest alone, and the debt will therefore continuously increase, putting it further and further out of reach. Ultimately the system is designed so that most people will never be able to pay that loan back. It will effectively become another tax on those earning average and slightly above average salaries - in other words, the middle class. You don't even have to be particularly cynical to realise that this is a deliberate attempt to subtly increase the disparity between the rich and the normal. Progressive taxation, on the other hand, is designed to do the opposite.
dave the caveman Posted 11 November 2010 Posted 11 November 2010 What's wrong with the rich and the normal??
Jon the Hat Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 13:52. In hand with the point that there ill be no interest charged up until you earn 21k, that just means you will be obliged to pay interest on the period of borrowing if you want to settle. Makes sense.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Interesting... so it's actually inflation + 3%. But the "Interest rate for those on less than £21,000 would remain at zero." Does that zero mean zero or just inflation? This means the debt wouldn't rise before the graduate earns £21k. But assuming a debt of £30k and inflation at 3%, interest would start at £150 per month. In order for £150 to make up 9% of earnings over £21k (or in other words for a graduate to earn enough to keep up with interest - to stop the debt from spiralling) he would have to earn £41k per annum. At which point, the interest rate INCREASES. . This is unbelievable. This appears to be a graduate tax linked to what you actually borrowed rather than a flat rate. It appears to expire after 30 years, (like a mortgage) and there is no concept of paying it back as such. You appear correct that the debt doesn't pay down given these figures. I am not sure I like the mechanics particularly, although that said without taking a lot more when you are on a realitevly low salary I don't see it funding itself otherwise. Someway or other those who do well after attending Uni are subsidising those who don't.
Benji Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Someway or other those who do well after attending Uni are subsidising those who don't. Which sucks ass
Jon the Hat Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Which sucks ass Much as the 40% tax rates does in fact.
dave the caveman Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 So if you earn up to £32k on average and assuming a debt of £30k, you get a fair or better than fair deal - £32k would mean a yearly repayment of £990 or nearly £30k over 30 years. There seems little incentive to borrow any less than the maximum amount possible. The people who earn above £32k will have to take the flack from those well below, until you get to Cameron's polo buddies who are immune because they didn't have to take the loan in the first place. I'm not as angry looking at this now as I was yesterday to be honest
Guest Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 What's wrong with the rich and the normal?? It's the assumption that those without lots of money are "normal". Have you not seen the Jezza Kyle show?
Fosse Boy Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23897210-bring-down-the-government-says-student-march-organiser.do lol Remember this geezer from uni.Once appeared in a comedy video I made for student TV. Brilliant, just brilliant.
The Doctor Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 How can you be sure that not all uni course will cost £9k? The Higher Education Policy Institute seems to think they will. And when will you fools stop pedalling this media and arts course bullshit? A very small percentage of people actually choose those courses, and in theory, if education is to be subsidised by the government then it would seem somewhat strange, in a supposedly world leading country, in the 21st century, to shun cultural studies, unless of course we're heading for some kind of great leap forward. The general aversion to those course on display on this board just reeks of 2nd hand knowledge to be honest. Maybe some of the posters would benefit from doing an arts course - they tend to encourage independent thought. Source on not being able to pay the loan back early... it escapes me somehow. I will keep looking though. Watch this space. You may be correct about the government not making any money off of this, I'm not sure, but my figures still stand. If you are pushed into this trap, you will probably never get out. but they don't actually provide anything useful careerwise. The sciences, engineering, mathematics, law, medical courses etc. those degrees and the students studying them are useful to society because they are preparing for a career which benefits the country. We need people studying the effects of climate change, the quality of energy sources, developing new pharmeceuticals, becoming doctors, accountants. lawyers etc. These all impact upon every day life. Arts degrees don't. Oh and can i just point out that though the tuition fees are rising, the salary at which you have to start paying it back is as well.
FoxyPV Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Law is an arts degree and I wouldn't say lawyers benefit the country at all.
Guest ttfn Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Law is an arts degree and I wouldn't say lawyers benefit the country at all. Well you're totally mental then. If there were no British lawyers there'd be no criminal justice system, no banking system and we'd get shafted by every single other country in Europe. Don't get me wrong, it's not my favourite profession, but it's pretty important.
Unit Posted 13 November 2010 Posted 13 November 2010 Law is an arts degree and I wouldn't say lawyers benefit the country at all. Surely in university campuses it falls under Business and Law? I can't see it ever being an Art subject.
C-man Posted 13 November 2010 Posted 13 November 2010 I'm just really uncomfortable with the idea of burdening future generations with mountains of debt before they've even started their own lives. I hate the argument that over the course of their lives graduates will earn x-times more than non-graduates and should therefore pay even higher tuition fees. There's already a system for that called income tax. As for the penalty on paying loans back immediately, I honestly can't think of one reason why this can even be considered fair. As for waste degrees, I do Economics. Will I be of use to society once I graduate?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.