Joking aside, it really is no shock that 18-24's are unlikely to vote Tory, why would they when Laboour offers them the treasure?
The few of that age I know loved the uni fee promise above all else, but does depend if you view it as a loan or a graduate tax. I personally view it as the latter. The current system doesn’t work, oddly for those who come from more affluent parents where their maintenance loan is considerably less and therefore need their parents financial support to go. The biggest rip off is the interest rate which needs resolving.
Joking aside, it really is no shock that 18-24's are unlikely to vote Tory, why would they when Laboour offers them the treasure?
The few of that age I know loved the uni fee promise above all else, but does depend if you view it as a loan or a graduate tax. I personally view it as the latter. The current system doesn’t work, oddly for those who come from more affluent parents where their maintenance loan is considerably less and therefore need their parents financial support to go. The biggest rip off is the interest rate which needs resolving.
Nah, but it proves the link between spending and life expectancy.
Incidentally, both parties like to promise the goods. Remember the shit storm when the Tories dared suggest the triple lock becomes a double lock on pensions? That went down well.
Be nice if we really were all in it together. Shit needs paying for, and we all need to pay it. Because guess what? We all benefit!
Totally agree with the point re the interest rate.
One of the interesting things about the last election was a group of young people who people thought were not engaged by politics enough to vote, voted. All political parties focused on where the votes were and now they have to re-think. Engaging young people in the link between politics and their futures should be seen as a positive by everybody.
The argument around tuition fees is around whether we can afford it or not. Surely, ideally we don't disagree with students not accumulating big debts. What we can afford or not afford is the argument poliitical parties need to put forward for us to vote on accordingly. From my perspective, if we can afford wars and allow rich corporations to get away with not paying reasonable taxes, we ought to be able to afford to make our population better educated.
Joking aside, it really is no shock that 18-24's are unlikely to vote Tory, why would they when Laboour offers them the treasure?
The few of that age I know loved the uni fee promise above all else, but does depend if you view it as a loan or a graduate tax. I personally view it as the latter. The current system doesn’t work, oddly for those who come from more affluent parents where their maintenance loan is considerably less and therefore need their parents financial support to go. The biggest rip off is the interest rate which needs resolving.
Nah, but it proves the link between spending and life expectancy.
Incidentally, both parties like to promise the goods. Remember the shit storm when the Tories dared suggest the triple lock becomes a double lock on pensions? That went down well.
Be nice if we really were all in it together. Shit needs paying for, and we all need to pay it. Because guess what? We all benefit!
Totally agree with the point re the interest rate.
Agree, but very little 'on offer' from the Tories that the under 25's could buy into but lots for them to do so from Labour.
I agree on the all in it together, which was why I was a big fan of a 1-2p increase on all tax bands and extending the tax free band. Simply taxing higher earners even more was never going to work/raise enough. I think it would surprise a lot of people how much extra tax since the banking crisis high earners pay outside of the 20/40/45p bands. Whether that's the 60% cliff at 100k, lost child allowance, the various pension taxes on LTA's or contributions, tax on savings interest etc etc. Conversely the one thing I do like that the Tories have done on tax for lower earners is significantly raise the personal allowance. My wife is a TA and her salary hasn't moved greatly in the past 8-10 years but she now has almost no taxable income whereas previously over half her salary was taxed.
Because repayment is levied on salary above a level it's basically a graduate tax, and those who achieve financially from their Uni education will contribute to that education, those who don't will get a free degree. And regardless of which way you look at it, fee's/loans have not reduced the number going one bit.
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Joking aside, it really is no shock that 18-24's are unlikely to vote Tory, why would they when Laboour offers them the treasure?
The few of that age I know loved the uni fee promise above all else, but does depend if you view it as a loan or a graduate tax. I personally view it as the latter. The current system doesn’t work, oddly for those who come from more affluent parents where their maintenance loan is considerably less and therefore need their parents financial support to go. The biggest rip off is the interest rate which needs resolving.
Nah, but it proves the link between spending and life expectancy.
Incidentally, both parties like to promise the goods. Remember the shit storm when the Tories dared suggest the triple lock becomes a double lock on pensions? That went down well.
Be nice if we really were all in it together. Shit needs paying for, and we all need to pay it. Because guess what? We all benefit!
Totally agree with the point re the interest rate.
Agree, but very little 'on offer' from the Tories that the under 25's could buy into but lots for them to do so from Labour.
I agree on the all in it together, which was why I was a big fan of a 1-2p increase on all tax bands and extending the tax free band. Simply taxing higher earners even more was never going to work/raise enough. I think it would surprise a lot of people how much extra tax since the banking crisis high earners pay outside of the 20/40/45p bands. Whether that's the 60% cliff at 100k, lost child allowance, the various pension taxes on LTA's or contributions, tax on savings interest etc etc. Conversely the one thing I do like that the Tories have done on tax for lower earners is significantly raise the personal allowance. My wife is a TA and her salary hasn't moved greatly in the past 8-10 years but she now has almost no taxable income whereas previously over half her salary was taxed.
Because repayment is levied on salary above a level it's basically a graduate tax, and those who achieve financially from their Uni education will contribute to that education, those who don't will get a free degree. And regardless of which way you look at it, fee's/loans have not reduced the number going one bit.
Excellent post.
It's odd that the most beneficial socialist action was carried out by the coalition - Blairlabour should be ashamed they didnt lift the tax burden during their boom years.
Its interesting that the voting profiles shown above are fairly closely replicated in Poland -older voters right leaning, younger left leaning and less inclined to vote. Their next election will need more young voters to turn out if the country is to remove the current anti-EU right leaning administration.
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
So the families that can supposedly afford it will end up paying less because they aren't being charged interest?
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
So the families that can supposedly afford it will end up paying less because they aren't being charged interest?
No. Lets say for instance I can afford it and pay £50k for my daughter and £50k for my nephew to go to university. No they won't have a loan being charged an extortionate rate of interest, but then I won't have £100k banked/invested earning that or better. I'd say it equals each other out there or there abouts.
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Perhaps it’s the government’s way of easing the next generation into interest rates on credit cards etc to keep the banks happy. “I’ll tell you what, have an interest rate of 6.3% now, and when you get a credit card, and are paying 19% you’d have least experienced what an interest rate looks like and you’ll be used to debt”
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
So the families that can supposedly afford it will end up paying less because they aren't being charged interest?
No. Lets say for instance I can afford it and pay £50k for my daughter and £50k for my nephew to go to university. No they won't have a loan being charged an extortionate rate of interest, but then I won't have £100k banked/invested earning that or better. I'd say it equals each other out there or there abouts.
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Nope, not even me, it's ridiculous.
Where are you getting interest of 6% at a bank? I work for a bank. I have loads of customers moaning at me about the pittance we pay. I would love to have an answer for them.
You have equated it like an opportunity cost, potential earnings are the same as debt. They might invest it, they may lose it or more likely spend it. You definitely have the debt and the way it has been structured most will never have the chance to pay it back. I imagine it will be the next generations pension crisis.
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
So the families that can supposedly afford it will end up paying less because they aren't being charged interest?
No. Lets say for instance I can afford it and pay £50k for my daughter and £50k for my nephew to go to university. No they won't have a loan being charged an extortionate rate of interest, but then I won't have £100k banked/invested earning that or better. I'd say it equals each other out there or there abouts.
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Nope, not even me, it's ridiculous.
Where are you getting interest of 6% at a bank? I work for a bank. I have loads of customers moaning at me about the pittance we pay. I would love to have an answer for them.
You have equated it like an opportunity cost, potential earnings are the same as debt. They might invest it, they may lose it or more likely spend it. You definitely have the debt and the way it has been structured most will never have the chance to pay it back. I imagine it will be the next generations pension crisis.
Argentina
But back to your original point, it's likely those who can afford it most, on average, will be paying more, not less.
I don't see it as the next pension crisis, and I doubt it'll be in it's current guise in 10 years time.
Something else occurred to me re student loans, the really well off parents will be able to pay the tuition fees and maintenance up front, and thus their offspring won't be paying back any interest, so in effect will pay less than their less well-off contemporise if earning a similar salary. Not exactly a graduate tax then, is it?
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
So the families that can supposedly afford it will end up paying less because they aren't being charged interest?
No. Lets say for instance I can afford it and pay £50k for my daughter and £50k for my nephew to go to university. No they won't have a loan being charged an extortionate rate of interest, but then I won't have £100k banked/invested earning that or better. I'd say it equals each other out there or there abouts.
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Nope, not even me, it's ridiculous.
Where are you getting interest of 6% at a bank? I work for a bank. I have loads of customers moaning at me about the pittance we pay. I would love to have an answer for them.
You have equated it like an opportunity cost, potential earnings are the same as debt. They might invest it, they may lose it or more likely spend it. You definitely have the debt and the way it has been structured most will never have the chance to pay it back. I imagine it will be the next generations pension crisis.
Argentina
But back to your original point, it's likely those who can afford it most, on average, will be paying more, not less.
I don't see it as the next pension crisis, and I doubt it'll be in it's current guise in 10 years time.
It's not quite so simple as that though is it? My parents aren't paying extra tax, it's me. It might cost a family more but I'm definitely paying more.
What is going to happen to the ever increasing debt that is never going to be paid off?
Something else occurred to me re student loans, the really well off parents will be able to pay the tuition fees and maintenance up front, and thus their offspring won't be paying back any interest, so in effect will pay less than their less well-off contemporise if earning a similar salary. Not exactly a graduate tax then, is it?
If the parents pay the say £50k the student may not get charged interest but the parent will lose interest (the return they would have had on the £50k). From my point of view I can return better than 6.3% so in that respect I’d be worse off.
There’s a lot of variables, ie if you intend to go into a career where the salaries are quite low the interest and loan size may be irrelevant as after 30 years it’s wiped.
Martin Lewis has been scathing regarding how the graduate "loans" have been sold to the public, when basically they are a tax. Personally I don't see what a graduate tax can achieve that income tax can't... If you earn more, you pay more
Absolutely nothing, it’s just a case of who pays, those who directly benefit or the wider country or even business.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax ) to their adult children’s uni cost!
It's a lot of money, but a worthy investment... That said, I've some sympathy with the notion that not everyone who goes to university really needs to, and that a lot of vacancies asking for graduates could be filled just as competently by a non graduate, but that's another story.
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
Very true, as I know only too well. My nephew's father wouldn't help him, but because of his fathers salary he could only receive about 4k in maintenance loan, his accommodation alone was 50% more than that. If I didn't help him I doubt he'd have gone.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
So the families that can supposedly afford it will end up paying less because they aren't being charged interest?
No. Lets say for instance I can afford it and pay £50k for my daughter and £50k for my nephew to go to university. No they won't have a loan being charged an extortionate rate of interest, but then I won't have £100k banked/invested earning that or better. I'd say it equals each other out there or there abouts.
Can anybody justify a student loan interest rate of 6.3%, where after working and paying down at the required rate for a year what you owe actually increases?
Nope, not even me, it's ridiculous.
Where are you getting interest of 6% at a bank? I work for a bank. I have loads of customers moaning at me about the pittance we pay. I would love to have an answer for them.
You have equated it like an opportunity cost, potential earnings are the same as debt. They might invest it, they may lose it or more likely spend it. You definitely have the debt and the way it has been structured most will never have the chance to pay it back. I imagine it will be the next generations pension crisis.
Argentina
But back to your original point, it's likely those who can afford it most, on average, will be paying more, not less.
I don't see it as the next pension crisis, and I doubt it'll be in it's current guise in 10 years time.
It's not quite so simple as that though is it? My parents aren't paying extra tax, it's me. It might cost a family more but I'm definitely paying more.
What is going to happen to the ever increasing debt that is never going to be paid off?
Yes family more, individual less, the cost is just passing from child to parent.
We’ve a long time to wait to see how much is written off. I wouldn’t be surprised if an actuary has calculated it and it’s on that basis that the interest rate has been set so high.
I can't see how it not more efficient to pay for some of it via income tax for higher earners. With these loans, you don't know how much is going to be paid back or when anyway. Foreign students should pay and we should ensure the quality of degrees are such that they are willing to pay a premium for them. That will help bring the costs down.
I would still have loans though, but which are paid back not in money, but by years working in this country for most courses. So if a doctor who studied here but works in the US, they should pay back the loan to British taxpayers. I also believe that there are courses that are not beneficial for the student or anybody else bar the people being paid for them to do them. These should be outside the system which may put off students from doing them hopefully.
I can't see how it not more efficient to pay for some of it via income tax for higher earners. With these loans, you don't know how much is going to be paid back or when anyway. Foreign students should pay and we should ensure the quality of degrees are such that they are willing to pay a premium for them. That will help bring the costs down.
I would still have loans though, but which are paid back not in money, but by years working in this country for most courses. So if a doctor who studied here but works in the US, they should pay back the loan to British taxpayers. I also believe that there are courses that are not beneficial for the student or anybody else bar the people being paid for them to do them. These should be outside the system which may put off students from doing them hopefully.
I’m not sure you’d be able to raise enough on income tax if Labours 5% increase above 80k was set to raise about 6bn, you'd need at least 4x that to fully fund the current cost so even allowing for some other contribs like you say i'm not sure as a country we’re ready for an extra say 15p above 80k, just for people to go to University if they so wish, especially from the higher earners who would already be part funding their children if they go.
Providing people with the skills the country needs can only benefit the country in the medium term so will not be a burden. With interest rates so low, we (the country) could borrow money on the eventual return.
Providing people with the skills the country needs can only benefit the country in the medium term so will not be a burden. With interest rates so low, we (the country) could borrow money on the eventual return.
I believe we are already borrowing it to then lend it to the students. But someone somewhere at some point will have to pay for it.
6.3% Tory established interest rates on a 50k loan for new graduates working for 27k or so and living in London is so reasonable given the cost of housing/rents/accomodation in this city. Oh hang on.
6.3% Tory established interest rates on a 50k loan for new graduates working for 27k or so and living in London is so reasonable given the cost of housing/rents/accomodation in this city. Oh hang on.
I think it's a rip off to, but for accuracy once working it's a variable rate I believe, 6.3% is the current maximum for salaries over 45k. I think if you earn sub 25k it's 3.3% and scales up between the two. Although oddly I think it is the full 6.3% whilst at Uni.
6.3% Tory established interest rates on a 50k loan for new graduates working for 27k or so and living in London is so reasonable given the cost of housing/rents/accomodation in this city. Oh hang on.
Yeah, that £15 a month repayment is going to ruin them.
6.3% Tory established interest rates on a 50k loan for new graduates working for 27k or so and living in London is so reasonable given the cost of housing/rents/accomodation in this city. Oh hang on.
Yeah, that £15 a month repayment is going to ruin them.
Of course it won't ... And for right or wrong, it'll still be a big psychological hurdle for some and will prevent some students who would really benefit from going to uni... I can see social mobility suffer. Done properly, it could be sold to less well off students as a great opportunity to better themselves with no upfront cost
6.3% Tory established interest rates on a 50k loan for new graduates working for 27k or so and living in London is so reasonable given the cost of housing/rents/accomodation in this city. Oh hang on.
Yeah, that £15 a month repayment is going to ruin them.
Of course it won't ... And for right or wrong, it'll still be a big psychological hurdle for some and will prevent some students who would really benefit from going to uni... I can see social mobility suffer. Done properly, it could be sold to less well off students as a great opportunity to better themselves with no upfront cost
Doesn’t seem to be having that effect with half of 18 year olds going, take up hasn’t gone down. The only person I know who wanted to go but nearly didn’t was my nephew and his dad is relatively affluent and therefore with the minimum grant couldn’t go without financial help or taking a part time job needing to earn about 5k.
Almost all my daughters friends are going and their parents are a mixture of affluent with good jobs to single parent not working. I don’t know any of her cohort who aren’t going due to finances.
Comments
Joking aside, it really is no shock that 18-24's are unlikely to vote Tory, why would they when Laboour offers them the treasure?
The few of that age I know loved the uni fee promise above all else, but does depend if you view it as a loan or a graduate tax. I personally view it as the latter. The current system doesn’t work, oddly for those who come from more affluent parents where their maintenance loan is considerably less and therefore need their parents financial support to go.
The biggest rip off is the interest rate which needs resolving.
Incidentally, both parties like to promise the goods. Remember the shit storm when the Tories dared suggest the triple lock becomes a double lock on pensions? That went down well.
Be nice if we really were all in it together. Shit needs paying for, and we all need to pay it. Because guess what? We all benefit!
Totally agree with the point re the interest rate.
The argument around tuition fees is around whether we can afford it or not. Surely, ideally we don't disagree with students not accumulating big debts. What we can afford or not afford is the argument poliitical parties need to put forward for us to vote on accordingly. From my perspective, if we can afford wars and allow rich corporations to get away with not paying reasonable taxes, we ought to be able to afford to make our population better educated.
I agree on the all in it together, which was why I was a big fan of a 1-2p increase on all tax bands and extending the tax free band. Simply taxing higher earners even more was never going to work/raise enough. I think it would surprise a lot of people how much extra tax since the banking crisis high earners pay outside of the 20/40/45p bands. Whether that's the 60% cliff at 100k, lost child allowance, the various pension taxes on LTA's or contributions, tax on savings interest etc etc. Conversely the one thing I do like that the Tories have done on tax for lower earners is significantly raise the personal allowance. My wife is a TA and her salary hasn't moved greatly in the past 8-10 years but she now has almost no taxable income whereas previously over half her salary was taxed.
On Uni fee's and accumulating debt, Martin Lewis pretty much sums it up for me; https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes/
Because repayment is levied on salary above a level it's basically a graduate tax, and those who achieve financially from their Uni education will contribute to that education, those who don't will get a free degree. And regardless of which way you look at it, fee's/loans have not reduced the number going one bit.
It's odd that the most beneficial socialist action was carried out by the coalition - Blairlabour should be ashamed they didnt lift the tax burden during their boom years.
Its interesting that the voting profiles shown above are fairly closely replicated in Poland -older voters right leaning, younger left leaning and less inclined to vote. Their next election will need more young voters to turn out if the country is to remove the current anti-EU right leaning administration.
About 1.5m people are at Uni. Rough cost that’s circa 23bn per year in fees and an average 6k grant per head. That’s a lot of income tax to collect per annum.
I’d rather keep the status quo (but sort out the interest rate) and increase tax to spend elsewhere.
EDIT; don’t forget the more affluent parents are already contributing (call it a tax
Re well off parents ... Depends how well off, and whether they are prepared to spend it on their offspring! I went to Edinburgh, where there were lots of public school kids who clearly had a lot of money spent on their education already. A few more years wouldn't hurt. This was the first year of tuition fees (£1000 per year) and the Scottish students didn't have to pay it. Many were local and working class, and received maintenance grants. It's fair to say, both groups learned some new insults from each other.
I personally don't think they should be means tested. Uni students are adults so a parents salary is largely irrelevant. A household income of around 60k takes you down to the minimum grant. Even 45k takes 2.5k off.
I'm not sure it's always a worthy investment.......
The system works
You have equated it like an opportunity cost, potential earnings are the same as debt. They might invest it, they may lose it or more likely spend it. You definitely have the debt and the way it has been structured most will never have the chance to pay it back. I imagine it will be the next generations pension crisis.
But back to your original point, it's likely those who can afford it most, on average, will be paying more, not less.
I don't see it as the next pension crisis, and I doubt it'll be in it's current guise in 10 years time.
What is going to happen to the ever increasing debt that is never going to be paid off?
There’s a lot of variables, ie if you intend to go into a career where the salaries are quite low the interest and loan size may be irrelevant as after 30 years it’s wiped.
We’ve a long time to wait to see how much is written off. I wouldn’t be surprised if an actuary has calculated it and it’s on that basis that the interest rate has been set so high.
I would still have loans though, but which are paid back not in money, but by years working in this country for most courses. So if a doctor who studied here but works in the US, they should pay back the loan to British taxpayers. I also believe that there are courses that are not beneficial for the student or anybody else bar the people being paid for them to do them. These should be outside the system which may put off students from doing them hopefully.
Oh hang on.
Almost all my daughters friends are going and their parents are a mixture of affluent with good jobs to single parent not working. I don’t know any of her cohort who aren’t going due to finances.