For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Just to clarify the Student Loan is 9% right? All the rest has to be paid anyway, does it not?
If it helps your argument why don’t you add VAT, Council Tax, Road Tax, TV Licence, Insurance Premium Tax and Stamp Duty? Then you can make that marginal tax rate even higher.
Yes indirect taxes hit those earning less proportionately harder.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
I am only moderately savvy, but I certainly didn't expect the student loan to have an interest rate of 6.1%, especially given the current interest rates. It feels like a way of getting the money back with 30 years of high interest because of the risk of it not getting paid back at all. You may only pay back if you can afford it as you say, but you pay the interest rate for 30 years by earning over £21k, a figure that isn't adjusted annually. To start paying it down you need to be earning north of £41,000 per year, which I feel sure will be adjusted because of circumstances in the future. At the very very least the student loan should match the Bank of England base rate shouldn't it?
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Do the richest in society not pay NI ?
Only at 2% on earnings above c £40k
And 12% on all earnings under that, so your comparison was somewhat ridiculous.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
I am only moderately savvy, but I certainly didn't expect the student loan to have an interest rate of 6.1%, especially given the current interest rates. It feels like a way of getting the money back with 30 years of high interest because of the risk of it not getting paid back at all. You may only pay back if you can afford it as you say, but you pay the interest rate for 30 years by earning over £21k, a figure that isn't adjusted annually. To start paying it down you need to be earning north of £41,000 per year, which I feel sure will be adjusted because of circumstances in the future. At the very very least the student loan should match the Bank of England base rate shouldn't it?
This is a point a lot of those who dismiss the unfairness of the student loan scheme don't realise. The interest rates are an absolute disgrace. Only payday lenders seem to charge a higher rate of interest.
Most credit cards have a rate close to three times the 6.1% the student Loans are at. I believe it’s 3% above inflation which is hardly payday loan territory. Remember that they are unsecured loans and may never be repaid.
Even mortgages secured on properties twice the value of the debt don’t lend at the Repo rate.
Interest rates are, generally, priced according to risk. Go see if a bank will lend you £30k with no job and no assets.
I’d also guess that if you approached someone without a degree and said would like a loan for a max 30 years that you only pay interest on unless you earn nearly £50k that will be written off after 30 years at 3% above inflation I suspect those trying to get on the housing ladder would, literally rip your arm off and take your shoulder as well.
The decision to go to University or not is optional. If you (or your parents) have the money you don’t need to take loans. I appr coats that it will stop people that don’t, really, want to go to University from going but if it is a dream then the price is, potentially, 9% of income if you earn a decent amount later in life.
I would prefer if there was no need for these loans. Just like I would prefer it if the NHS wasn’t in crises, just like I’d prefer if all class sizes in schools were 20 rather than 30, I could go on but there is less money than we would like, and asking those that benefit, financially, from a University education to pay a little more is just one way to balance the books.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Do the richest in society not pay NI ?
Only at 2% on earnings above c £40k
And 12% on all earnings under that, so your comparison was somewhat ridiculous.
No that was all built into my comparison - marginal tax rate for ex students earning £21k + 41% - marginal tax rate for the highest earners 47%. Is that fair? In my opinion it is not - and even if there are to be student loans I believe the structure could be a lot fairer.
Most credit cards have a rate close to three times the 6.1% the student Loans are at. I believe it’s 3% above inflation which is hardly payday loan territory. Remember that they are unsecured loans and may never be repaid.
Even mortgages secured on properties twice the value of the debt don’t lend at the Repo rate.
Interest rates are, generally, priced according to risk. Go see if a bank will lend you £30k with no job and no assets.
I’d also guess that if you approached someone without a degree and said would like a loan for a max 30 years that you only pay interest on unless you earn nearly £50k that will be written off after 30 years at 3% above inflation I suspect those trying to get on the housing ladder would, literally rip your arm off and take your shoulder as well.
The decision to go to University or not is optional. If you (or your parents) have the money you don’t need to take loans. I appr coats that it will stop people that don’t, really, want to go to University from going but if it is a dream then the price is, potentially, 9% of income if you earn a decent amount later in life.
I would prefer if there was no need for these loans. Just like I would prefer it if the NHS wasn’t in crises, just like I’d prefer if all class sizes in schools were 20 rather than 30, I could go on but there is less money than we would like, and asking those that benefit, financially, from a University education to pay a little more is just one way to balance the books.
So as well as a marginal tax rate of 41% on those former student earning just £21000 per annum you think it fair to earn a c5% margin over the state's funding cost. Of course "fairness" is a value judgement and you are entitled to your opinion.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Do the richest in society not pay NI ?
Only at 2% on earnings above c £40k
And 12% on all earnings under that, so your comparison was somewhat ridiculous.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Do the richest in society not pay NI ?
Only at 2% on earnings above c £40k
And 12% on all earnings under that, so your comparison was somewhat ridiculous.
I should add that it is NI that is somewhat ridiculous - but the marginal tax rates I quote are real not made up, they are what many young people are now facing in reality.
Most credit cards have a rate close to three times the 6.1% the student Loans are at. I believe it’s 3% above inflation which is hardly payday loan territory. Remember that they are unsecured loans and may never be repaid.
Even mortgages secured on properties twice the value of the debt don’t lend at the Repo rate.
Interest rates are, generally, priced according to risk. Go see if a bank will lend you £30k with no job and no assets.
I’d also guess that if you approached someone without a degree and said would like a loan for a max 30 years that you only pay interest on unless you earn nearly £50k that will be written off after 30 years at 3% above inflation I suspect those trying to get on the housing ladder would, literally rip your arm off and take your shoulder as well.
The decision to go to University or not is optional. If you (or your parents) have the money you don’t need to take loans. I appr coats that it will stop people that don’t, really, want to go to University from going but if it is a dream then the price is, potentially, 9% of income if you earn a decent amount later in life.
I would prefer if there was no need for these loans. Just like I would prefer it if the NHS wasn’t in crises, just like I’d prefer if all class sizes in schools were 20 rather than 30, I could go on but there is less money than we would like, and asking those that benefit, financially, from a University education to pay a little more is just one way to balance the books.
So as well as a marginal tax rate of 41% on those former student earning just £21000 per annum you think it fair to earn a c5% margin over the state's funding cost. Of course "fairness" is a value judgement and you are entitled to your opinion.
Would you, personally, lend a complete stranger money that they might not pay back at an interest rate that made you no money if they paid it back but cost you a small fortune if they didn’t? Would you lend them someone else’s money on that basis?
How fair do you want them to be with the Public’s money?
On a separate note sm I make a point of not continuing discussions with people once they use the same figures that I have already refuted so by all means continue to insist that Students should be given thousands and thousands of pounds to fund a three year course that, probably, has considerably less than twenty hours contact time a week, when at the margin most of them have grades that suggest that they have hardly put a lot of effort in up to the age of eighteen - but I won’t be replying to any more of the stats that you throw about.
Most credit cards have a rate close to three times the 6.1% the student Loans are at. I believe it’s 3% above inflation which is hardly payday loan territory. Remember that they are unsecured loans and may never be repaid.
Even mortgages secured on properties twice the value of the debt don’t lend at the Repo rate.
Interest rates are, generally, priced according to risk. Go see if a bank will lend you £30k with no job and no assets.
I’d also guess that if you approached someone without a degree and said would like a loan for a max 30 years that you only pay interest on unless you earn nearly £50k that will be written off after 30 years at 3% above inflation I suspect those trying to get on the housing ladder would, literally rip your arm off and take your shoulder as well.
The decision to go to University or not is optional. If you (or your parents) have the money you don’t need to take loans. I appr coats that it will stop people that don’t, really, want to go to University from going but if it is a dream then the price is, potentially, 9% of income if you earn a decent amount later in life.
I would prefer if there was no need for these loans. Just like I would prefer it if the NHS wasn’t in crises, just like I’d prefer if all class sizes in schools were 20 rather than 30, I could go on but there is less money than we would like, and asking those that benefit, financially, from a University education to pay a little more is just one way to balance the books.
So as well as a marginal tax rate of 41% on those former student earning just £21000 per annum you think it fair to earn a c5% margin over the state's funding cost. Of course "fairness" is a value judgement and you are entitled to your opinion.
Would you, personally, lend a complete stranger money that they might not pay back at an interest rate that made you no money if they paid it back but cost you a small fortune if they didn’t? Would you lend them someone else’s money on that basis?
How fair do you want them to be with the Public’s money?
On a separate note sm I make a point of not continuing discussions with people once they use the same figures that I have already refuted so by all means continue to insist that Students should be given thousands and thousands of pounds to fund a three year course that, probably, has considerably less than twenty hours contact time a week, when at the margin most of them have grades that suggest that they have hardly put a lot of effort in up to the age of eighteen - but I won’t be replying to any more of the stats that you throw about.
Do you not believe that society in general benefits from having an educated population? Why does society provide general schooling for people under 18? The structure of your position seems to be that nothing ought to be provided by the wider population, or is there a reason to stop at the age of 18 beyond declaring 'you have to stop somewhere'? Should an independent single person contribute to the schooling of those who choose to have children, and if so why? As a society we seem to make choices, you and I differ in the choices made by our society regarding University Education, I contend that in comparison with the past, and in relation to the financial context of the present, that students are very unfairly treated, and the current system does not have it in any way 'about right'. Indeed it might be possible to find a compromise, as I believe they do in many countries of the excellent EU, where student access to universities is different, and student fees are less daunting for people.
Most credit cards have a rate close to three times the 6.1% the student Loans are at. I believe it’s 3% above inflation which is hardly payday loan territory. Remember that they are unsecured loans and may never be repaid.
Even mortgages secured on properties twice the value of the debt don’t lend at the Repo rate.
Interest rates are, generally, priced according to risk. Go see if a bank will lend you £30k with no job and no assets.
I’d also guess that if you approached someone without a degree and said would like a loan for a max 30 years that you only pay interest on unless you earn nearly £50k that will be written off after 30 years at 3% above inflation I suspect those trying to get on the housing ladder would, literally rip your arm off and take your shoulder as well.
The decision to go to University or not is optional. If you (or your parents) have the money you don’t need to take loans. I appr coats that it will stop people that don’t, really, want to go to University from going but if it is a dream then the price is, potentially, 9% of income if you earn a decent amount later in life.
I would prefer if there was no need for these loans. Just like I would prefer it if the NHS wasn’t in crises, just like I’d prefer if all class sizes in schools were 20 rather than 30, I could go on but there is less money than we would like, and asking those that benefit, financially, from a University education to pay a little more is just one way to balance the books.
So as well as a marginal tax rate of 41% on those former student earning just £21000 per annum you think it fair to earn a c5% margin over the state's funding cost. Of course "fairness" is a value judgement and you are entitled to your opinion.
Would you, personally, lend a complete stranger money that they might not pay back at an interest rate that made you no money if they paid it back but cost you a small fortune if they didn’t? Would you lend them someone else’s money on that basis?
How fair do you want them to be with the Public’s money?
On a separate note sm I make a point of not continuing discussions with people once they use the same figures that I have already refuted so by all means continue to insist that Students should be given thousands and thousands of pounds to fund a three year course that, probably, has considerably less than twenty hours contact time a week, when at the margin most of them have grades that suggest that they have hardly put a lot of effort in up to the age of eighteen - but I won’t be replying to any more of the stats that you throw about.
What figures have you refuted? The State's cost of funding with Gilts is c1% for the maturities we are talking about - so a 6% interest rate represent a gross margin of c5%. The credit card and mortgage lenders you quote do not have access to funds at the same rates as the State and it is the State's rates and underwriting of losses that is being passed onto the Student Loan Companies so your comparison has little validity. The marginal tax rates I quoted were also entirely accurate.
Comments
At the very very least the student loan should match the Bank of England base rate shouldn't it?
Even mortgages secured on properties twice the value of the debt don’t lend at the Repo rate.
Interest rates are, generally, priced according to risk. Go see if a bank will lend you £30k with no job and no assets.
I’d also guess that if you approached someone without a degree and said would like a loan for a max 30 years that you only pay interest on unless you earn nearly £50k that will be written off after 30 years at 3% above inflation I suspect those trying to get on the housing ladder would, literally rip your arm off and take your shoulder as well.
The decision to go to University or not is optional. If you (or your parents) have the money you don’t need to take loans. I appr coats that it will stop people that don’t, really, want to go to University from going but if it is a dream then the price is, potentially, 9% of income if you earn a decent amount later in life.
I would prefer if there was no need for these loans. Just like I would prefer it if the NHS wasn’t in crises, just like I’d prefer if all class sizes in schools were 20 rather than 30, I could go on but there is less money than we would like, and asking those that benefit, financially, from a University education to pay a little more is just one way to balance the books.
How fair do you want them to be with the Public’s money?
On a separate note sm I make a point of not continuing discussions with people once they use the same figures that I have already refuted so by all means continue to insist that Students should be given thousands and thousands of pounds to fund a three year course that, probably, has considerably less than twenty hours contact time a week, when at the margin most of them have grades that suggest that they have hardly put a lot of effort in up to the age of eighteen - but I won’t be replying to any more of the stats that you throw about.
Why does society provide general schooling for people under 18? The structure of your position seems to be that nothing ought to be provided by the wider population, or is there a reason to stop at the age of 18 beyond declaring 'you have to stop somewhere'?
Should an independent single person contribute to the schooling of those who choose to have children, and if so why?
As a society we seem to make choices, you and I differ in the choices made by our society regarding University Education, I contend that in comparison with the past, and in relation to the financial context of the present, that students are very unfairly treated, and the current system does not have it in any way 'about right'.
Indeed it might be possible to find a compromise, as I believe they do in many countries of the excellent EU, where student access to universities is different, and student fees are less daunting for people.
https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/support/your-studies-begin/tuition-fees