Forum menu
ok, i'll try again, because some of you just aren't getting it/listening.
i'm a graduate, with a requirement to pay money to the student loans co.
i get paid an average-ish salary, and i'd be £40,000 [b]better off[/b] under the new system.
all of the other stuff that you don't like was exactly the same under the old system.
Nick Clegg couldn't get rid of tuition fees, but he did manage to reduce the cost to the average graduate by 67%.
(more if you earn less)
Nick Clegg couldn't get rid of tuition fees, but he did manage to reduce the cost to the average graduate by 67%.(more if you earn less)
Hmmmm, and now his (and his party's) political careers are dead, are you being paid by him to resurrect them?
Nick Clegg couldn't get rid of tuition fees, but he did manage to reduce the cost to the average graduate by 67%.
I'm not sure that's true.
Whilst you (and I) would be better off under the new system, there will be many that have already cleared their loans under the old system who would still be paying them off under the new one due to the loans being massively higher.
another thing about the new system, it is being extended to help part time students. Unlike the old system where little to no help existed
ebygomm - MemberNick Clegg couldn't get rid of tuition fees, but he did manage to reduce the cost to the average graduate by 67%.
I'm not sure that's true.
tis. i've done the maths, it's all up there ^ for you to check.
(i'm comparing a recent graduate from the old system, with a future graduate under the new system)
and i voted green.
Your maths seems to assume that all graduates in the old system will never pay their loan back. It's the case for some but not all.
e.g. a graduate with a loan of 10 grand under the old system, with a starting salary of say 20k rising to 24k after 4 years and rising 2% each year would pay off their loan in around 15 years having paid something like 13 grand in total. Under the new system their loan would be around 30 grand and assuming the same salary figures after 30 years they'd have paid back 28 grand but not cleared the loan.
(This assumes an interest rate on the loan of 3%)
Aracer ah nothing like patronising me because I disagree as does the man who proposed it and his figures disagree with your ideology
You're also ignoring the facts that I've done the calcs based on my own circumstances, and unless something remarkable happens to my salary over the next 10 years I'd have been far better off under the new loan scheme than the old one
Oh right you are better off so it is a better system – that, according to Vince makes you one of the 25% better off rather than the other 75% though - wantto challeneg his figures?
But don't let facts like this get in the way of your ideology
You might want to have reflect on that statement there
Nick Clegg couldn't get rid of tuition fees, but he did manage to reduce the cost to the average graduate by 67%.
Have you based your figure on the average wage rather than the average graduate wage? – Vince Cable says 75% are not better off who is correct?
yes, i've been assuming that having a degree doesn't make a huge difference to your earning power - on average.
it might have made a difference once, when only 5% of the population had a degree, it's yet to be seen how the 50% thing affects this.
a graduate with ... with a starting salary of 20k rising to 24k after 4 years and rising 2% each year would ...
be doing very nicely for themselves, certainly a lot better than most.
a graduate from last week will owe around £24k* to the student loans co. i wouldn't be expecting to clear that debt any time soon, unless i was going into banking or doctoring.
(*£33k under the new system)
A graduate from last week also has their debt written off after 25 years rather than 30. There's so many variables meaningful comparison is difficult. I know at one point new loans would also attract a higher level of interest (although not sure what actually got passed) so increasing the numbers who will never pay off the debt.
As an aside, I wonder how many pre-1998 loans are still outstanding. You don't pay those back until you're earning close to average salary which is higher than the 21k being introduced.
FWIW - having read more around this is does seem to have some [broadly] progressive aspects - the rich pay more which there is a higher threshold etc. If we had to have a fee paying system this does make it better, especially, for low earners. It is an improvement [ ignoring the increase] on the previous system but I am still anti tutiton fees and therefore the rise. I am also anti the 50% target as well.
ebygomm - MemberA graduate from last week also has their debt written off after 25 years rather than 30.
are you sure about that?
Pretty sure it changed in 2006 to 25 years. 1998-2005 was age 65.
Of course, I'm sure the student loans company are capable of keeping track of all these differing systems...
aracer said
[i] You clearly don't actually understand how the fact you only have to pay back a % of your income above a (quite high) threshold and that it gets written off after 30 years makes it totally unlike any conventional loan, sufficiently so that the banks don't treat it like one when assessing whether to make other loans to you.[/i]
Ok, so the [i]quite high threashold[/i] is £21k - you are having a laugh aren't you - was it worth 3 years for that?
And banks don't treat it like [b]debt[/b]? Of course they [b]will[/b], its a reduction in your spending from age 21 to 51, and consequential reduction in your mortgage abilities etc.
student loans company are capable
ROFL.
aracer - MemberShould we cut income tax so as to get the economy working better?
To be fair aracer, as from next month, the basic rate of income tax will be no greater than
the rate of VAT.
Another great achievement by the Conservatives.
A graduate from last week also has their debt written off after 25 years rather than 30. There's so many variables meaningful comparison is difficult.
Except that if a graduate under the current system is having their debt written off after 25 years, the comparison is very straightforward.
If your income is between £15k and £21k then you're worse off under the old system because you'll pay nothing under the new system. If your income is over £21k then you'll be paying £540 a year less under the new system, so you'd only be worse off overall under the new system if your payment under the old system was £3240 a year (I'm ignoring the effects of interest and inflation here - if you include those the figure is higher), which would result in you paying off £81k in total, a sum which isn't actually possible under the old system.
The conclusion therefore is that any graduate on the old system having their debt written off after 25 years would be far better off with the new system.
FWIW - having read more around this is does seem to have some [broadly] progressive aspects - the rich pay more which there is a higher threshold etc. If we had to have a fee paying system this does make it better, especially, for low earners. It is an improvement [ ignoring the increase] on the previous system but I am still anti tutiton fees and therefore the rise. I am also anti the 50% target as well.
Well done, Junkyard, you've got it - I'll take back my previous comments. The point being if tuition fees are such a problem for the poor then they should have been protesting when they were introduced by Labour, not when the coalition made them more progressive. I'm still unconvinced by the general principle of tuition fees and simply arguing that these changes make the system better - we agree about the 50% target.
ebygomm - MemberPretty sure it changed in 2006 to 25 years. 1998-2005 was age 65.
that [i]is[/i] interesting, i did not know it had changed from the 98-05 system that i'm in...
recalculating...
the new fees/loan/repayment system will save the average-salary-earner £11250.
(11000 x 0.09 x 25) - (5000 x 0.09 x 30)
Am I right in thinking that Students from Wales and Scotland will not have to pay fees even if they attend Uni in England?
Why don't we ask Prisoners to pay back their costs once they leave, people on benefit to pay back when they get a job, why don't all the people on 'the sick' pay their money back. No, lets ask the students to create the wealth, jobs, demand and then tax them to the hilt to pay for everything....great idea....I'm moving to Canada, I no longer believe in this stupidity.
not when the coalition made them more progressive
Yes but by doing this they also increased the overall debt and only 25% of people are better off so you are still ignoring my point - ie it increases and the majoity are worse off. The progressive element is there [ and fairer]but the majority of people are NOT better off are they?
You have not done average raduate salary earner here so it is not a fair comparison as we are discussing graduates not the general populace. As above the person who put it forward accepts that the majoriy of students 75% will not be better offaverage-salary-earner
alfagtv1969 - MemberWhy don't we ask Prisoners to pay back their costs once they leave,
If they get compo for a miscarrige of justice they do
alfagtv1969 - Member.I'm moving to Canada, I no longer believe in this stupidity.
Bye. I doubt you will find it any better their tho - public services got cut to the bone IIRC
alfagtv1969 - Member
lets ask the students to create the wealth, jobs, demand
Students seem to be good at creating demands, not so sure about wealth and jobs.
alfagtv1969 - Member
Am I right in thinking that Students from Wales and Scotland will not have to pay fees even if they attend Uni in England?
[url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/savings-and-banking/student-finance/article.html?in_article_id=519220&in_page_id=52 ]All you need to know....[/url]
the majority of people are NOT better off are they?
No, but why shouldn't people who earn a lot of money pay more? We keep pointing out how much you have to earn to be worse off, and it's well above what most people earn. It just seems somewhat bizarre that the lefties are all protesting that the management consultants and city bankers will have to pay a lot more so that the lowest paid graduates (those they're ostensibly protesting in support of) are better off.
So say the average graduate salary was twice the average salary of the general population - it would be unreasonable for the average graduate to pay a bit more towards the education which helped them earn twice as much as somebody who hadn't had that opportunity? Bearing in mind that even after paying this money they're still earning a lot more?You have not done average raduate salary earner here so it is not a fair comparison as we are discussing graduates not the general populace
Students seem to be good at creating demands, not so sure about wealth and jobs.
Really? So all those bars would still be there without students to drink in them? 😉
You may be correct on the students part, but it's complete drivel when it comes to what students become i.e. highly qualified specialists (hopefully), whose productivity prings profit to the organisations for which they work, hence generating both wealth and jobs...
Why don't we ask Prisoners to pay back their costs once they leave
Actually that's a really good idea. Prison loans. After all they don't call them the universities of crime for nothing - the crims should easily be able to afford it with their increased takings after spending a bit of time inside. I'll suggest it to CMD next time I see him.
"One cause of this failure to match Britain's competitors in creating a skilled nation lay in the cult of the 'practical man' itself, which maent that there was little demand from industry and trained personnel at whatever level of qualification. This proved especcially trueof technical training, as the Board of Education reported in, 1908-9, 'The slow growth of these technical institutions is, however, in the main to be ascribed to the small demand in this country for the services of young men well trained in the theoretical side of industrial operations. But there were other causes too. According to the Liberal economic and social doctrine of Laissez-faire which prevailed in Britain from the 1840's until the middle of the Great War, education should be left to private enterprise or private charity, and training to the 'practical man' on shop-floor or in office. The idea that the state should create a coherent and elaborate national structure of education and training thus appeared to the Victorian political consensus as positively un-English, not to say Prussian: hence the spasmodic and disconnected nature of British governments' reluctant initiatives in this field. [b]Moreopver, despite the doom-laden warnings of royal commissions, these governments - unlike European - regarded expenditure on education and training as a painful and politically unpopular load on the taxpayer rather than as a key investment in the country's future prosperity[/b]."
The Lost Victory - Correlli Barnett, 1995