Student Loans Company Agressive Letter

[BuffetSlayer]

You wont find one of those posts in my history.................

Who said I was talking about you? In truth it was a general comment and not aimed at anyone in particular.

Kind of like most big businesses do anyway?

But be careful little citizen, if you do that you'll be shamed on OCUK for it.

So if most big businesses decided to jump off a cliff, you would follow? I can only speak for myself but I have always believed two wrongs do not make a right. I have also always tried to take bearings from my own moral compass and not view the questionable activities/behaviour of others as a license to copy them and behave in an equally questionable manner.

I think that's a bit strong. I don't think that modifying your lifestyle in that way is fraudulent because then you live a life you much sustain on payments that are indeed below that threshold and it becomes an informed financial decision (albeit an arguably immoral one).

If I were a higher rate tax payer, I could opt to put the proportion of my taxable income that would fall within that higher rate bracket in my pension pot (before tax is deducted via PAYE), thereby putting the gross funds into my pension pot and only being taxed at the lower rate on my annuity. If I were to do that, I would effectively dodge the higher rate bracket. Similarly, I do not think that is fraudulent, but an informed decision.

Of course, claiming that you are earning X to HMRC or creditors when you are in fact earning Y, is bona fide fraud.

Doing something because you can does not mean you should. But each to their own I guess. I personally view it in the same way I view politicians who were making fortunes from expense claims. Technically they did nothing wrong, so why all the problems when it all came out in the wash then........?

If people want to behave in that way because they can, that is their decision. It takes all sorts. But Karma has a a way of coming full circle, as we saw with many politicians

The state does not lose out even if some loans never get repaid because it offers cheap loans which gives many people, who would otherwise have menial jobs, the chance to become professionals who earn more and pay more taxes. In Germany, university is free so the default rate could be described as 100% yet the state is in the green if 42% of the students work in the country for just 5 years after graduation.

A couple of years ago, the government sold £890million of outstanding student debt for £130 million to private companies. By anyone's standards that a large shortfall - £760m written off. Admittedly I don't know a lot about it, but Who picks up that tab? Surely that black hole has to be made up somewhere for them to be able to balance the books? I suggest it falls on the tax payer.

There are some interesting articles out there if you Google. At present it stands that there is something like a £4.1bn black hole in student finances from debt that has been written off and this is set to rise to £20bn by 2050. In May this year the figures suggest that 45p in every £1 lent is being written off!

So yes you are correct the state does not lose out because they just hammer the tax payer for the shortfalls!

But by people not repaying their loans when they can they lay the foundations for harsh changes to the system that will cause disadvantage to future generations and no doubt 25 years down the line these students will be lamenting how their kids just can't afford to go to uni because of how expensive it all is...........

 

[dowie]

Yeah, I suppose SDE at Hewlett Packard is quite a lowly position at a random company. It's not like HP are the worlds 2nd largest IT companay or anything.

so you were a developer at a tech company... not exactly rare on a tech forum and I'm not sure why the size of the company has any relevance

inflation still exists, the deficit needs to be reduced, you've retired... the younger generation posting on this forum, assuming they're degree educated/working in tech etc.. will likely more in tax in terms of £s than you ever did and a larger portion of their tax will have to go towards paying off debt rather than providing services - they're also the ones who will be paying for your retirement and medical care, it isn't like we have a sovereign wealth fund in the UK

 

[Em3bbs]

Yeah, I suppose SDE at Hewlett Packard is quite a lowly position at a random company. It's not like HP are the worlds 2nd largest IT companay or anything.

Wow, aren't we honoured to have such (formerly) important and successful people grace this forum.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Wow, aren't we honoured to have such (formerly) important and successful people grace this forum.

Do behave - his epeen is bigger than yours and everybody knows it!!

I bet his dad could also beat your dad up too!

 

[MrMoonX]

I knew someone years ago that went to Uni in the 90's. He said his threshold for paying it back was £21k. Never heard of that before. He worked for the council and was earning the top of his bracket for his position. I think he said it was £20,800 or so.

I am not sure of the T&C's of his repayment but he didn't have an amount deducted monthly, but once a year they would write to him to prove what he earned. They would ask him to provide payslip copies of the last 3 months.

He used to do a lot of overtime, but he would stop it 3 months before the request for information was received. He was earning circa £24k for a couple of years, and well over £21k for the same time or more.

He had no intention of paying it back. Votes labour too.

So much fail on this post! It's simply not true slc use your tax records not payslips they have direct access to HMRC records, which would obviously put to bed this absolutely horse **** of a story

 

[Deleted member 66701]

so you were a developer at a tech company...

SDE = Service Delivery Executive.

The size of the company was relevant to the posters "random company" jibe - i.e. HP aren't just a "random company".

Wow, aren't we honoured to have such (formerly) important and successful people grace this forum.

You plebs should be grateful and know your place!

BTW - in case anyone can't tell by now, I'm just having a bit of fun. Don't take anyhing I say too seriously - this is GD after all

 

[Caged]

Were you there during Fiorina's reign?

 

[dowie]

SDE = Service Delivery Executive.

The size of the company was relevant to the posters "random company" jibe - i.e. HP aren't just a "random company".

yes they are just a random company, you're talking about the amount of tax you've paid the size of the company isn't very relevant

FWIW there are a few hundred UK salaries for HP posted on glassdoor - the pay there from that sample is very mediocre...

 

[Zethor]

A couple of years ago, the government sold £890million of outstanding student debt for £130 million to private companies. By anyone's standards that a large shortfall - £760m written off. Admittedly I don't know a lot about it, but Who picks up that tab? Surely that black hole has to be made up somewhere for them to be able to balance the books? I suggest it falls on the tax payer.

There are some interesting articles out there if you Google. At present it stands that there is something like a £4.1bn black hole in student finances from debt that has been written off and this is set to rise to £20bn by 2050. In May this year the figures suggest that 45p in every £1 lent is being written off!

So yes you are correct the state does not lose out because they just hammer the tax payer for the shortfalls!

But by people not repaying their loans when they can they lay the foundations for harsh changes to the system that will cause disadvantage to future generations and no doubt 25 years down the line these students will be lamenting how their kids just can't afford to go to uni because of how expensive it all is...........

You completely avoided my point so it's beyond me why you decided to write this as a reply.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-12983928

People with degrees earned an average of £12,000 a year more than non-graduates over the past decade, statistics show.

The state will take roughly 50% of that 12k, mainly through income taxes and VAT which means that even if ALL of the state financed former students refuse to return their debt, the money is recovered in a few years. In reality, the latest estimated default levels are at 45%, as you said yourself, which means the state (and the tax payer) recover the money even faster.

The problem is you and many of the other posters refuse to look at the big picture and instead focus on anectodal evidence such as the situation of the OP.

Although student loans cost the tax payer money, the returns through taxes from extra income easily cover the costs and would do so even if university were free.

 

[Housey]

I'm lost, has the OP paid his monies back and is he still driving his BMW?

 

[fendi]

So much fail on this post! It's simply not true slc use your tax records not payslips they have direct access to HMRC records, which would obviously put to bed this absolutely horse **** of a story

Well it is true. So how do you like them apples.

edit,

he chose to defer repaying it. so quit talking like you know **** when you don't.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....entLoansCoursesStartingBefore1998/DG_10034847

he has no intention of repaying it. also looks like it is just under £26k now.

 

[Pudney]

So much fail on this post! It's simply not true slc use your tax records not payslips they have direct access to HMRC records, which would obviously put to bed this absolutely horse **** of a story

He's talking about the old style mortgage type loans, not the income contingent loans from 1998.

 

[FoxEye]

There's a lot of weird comments in this thread.

There is nothing - really, nothing - sneaky about what I'm doing. I'm abiding by the terms of repayment 100%. I'm not engineering my income to avoid repaying the loan. Atm I find myself unemployed, and due to circumstances not available for work anyhow. I will be trying to earn as much as I can in future, as most people do.

If I earn more than 21k I will continue to pay it back at whatever rate the SLC decide, via PAYE. I will have no control over this at all.

What I will not do is pay it back voluntarily, or overpay it. I am not required to, nor is any student required to.

Martin Lewis of MSE recommends people do not make voluntary payments. Various articles advertise and promote the fact that most people can avoid paying the loan off entirely, and should make no effort to do so.

This is not sneaky. This is not sly, nor underhand.

What are you guys not understanding, here?

 

[Derek W]

This is not sneaky. This is not sly, nor underhand.

What are you guys not understanding, here?

And going by your OP they are only asking for one bit of information to 'determine' whether you need to pay any / all of the loan back.

Its not sneaky, sly or underhand

What are you not understanding here?

 

[BuffetSlayer]

You completely avoided my point so it's beyond me why you decided to write this as a reply.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-12983928

People with degrees earned an average of £12,000 a year more than non-graduates over the past decade, statistics show.

The state will take roughly 50% of that 12k, mainly through income taxes and VAT which means that even if ALL of the state financed former students refuse to return their debt, the money is recovered in a few years. In reality, the latest estimated default levels are at 45%, as you said yourself, which means the state (and the tax payer) recover the money even faster.

The problem is you and many of the other posters refuse to look at the big picture and instead focus on anectodal evidence such as the situation of the OP.

Although student loans cost the tax payer money, the returns through taxes from extra income easily cover the costs and would do so even if university were free.

Something like 47% of the 12 million graduates* in this country are taking roles which do not require a degree and which they are over qualified for (translation = they are taking lower paid non-professional jobs and therefore providing less tax and in many cases not meeting the student loan repayment threshold).

Then there is the subject of saturation of the marketplace by graduates when there is no demand for them (IE media/arts/humanities), which links in nicely with the fact so many of them are working in elementary roles, often below the repayment threshold but have sometimes tens of thousands of pounds in student debt. Current working average is circa £45,000 of debt per graduate that started uni after 2012.

If, hypothetically, the cost of the loans is repayed via taxation on higher average earnings of graduates, fine. But then where does the money come from to cover the tax, in real terms, that the graduate has not paid into the Exchequer because their taxes have been used to offset student debt? Seems to me it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It is all well and good saying the equivalent in outstanding student debt will be recoupled via income tax - but that is not really what income tax is for is it? Furthermore that period of shortfall, however brief, has to be paid by someone or be translated into a cut somewhere else.


*ONS figures 2013

 

[Em3bbs]

The OP didn't even graduate, he dropped out. What a waste of a university place and taxpayer cash. If it were up to me then drop outs who have the means to pay back the loan should do so immediately, or certainly quicker than those who actually worked hard to graduate.

 

[dowie]

Something like 47% of the 12 million graduates* in this country are taking roles which do not require a degree and which they are over qualified for (translation = they are taking lower paid non-professional jobs and therefore providing less tax and in many cases not meeting the student loan repayment threshold).

not necessarily... depends how they're accounting for those numbers

there are plenty of roles that don't require degrees that are taken up mostly by graduates including legitimate professions - for example there are routes to becoming a chartered accountant, an actuary and a solicitor without being a graduate - though most people entering those professions will be graduates

there are highly paid sales/advisory roles like stockbroker, financial advisor, recruitment consultant - the first two require some rather basic exams below degree level and the last doesn't require anything - they're still often pursued by graduates even though they're technically overqualified

who does your 47% include - does it include recruitment consultants? Does it include accountants?

 

[Efour]

The OP didn't even graduate, he dropped out. What a waste of a university place and taxpayer cash. If it were up to me then drop outs who have the means to pay back the loan should do so immediately, or certainly quicker than those who actually worked hard to graduate.

I agree.

 

[dowie]

nah they should just lower the threshold at which you start making repayments - since non-grads typically earn less than grads the non grads with student loan debt should start making repayments at a lower salary

 

[silversurfer]

^^ thats true but you cant penalise someone for trying or at least I dont think they want to. People can get ill or have to move back home to look after others who are, all sorts of reasons why they discontinue studies.
Also that is ignoring that some very successful people went to uni, no doubt learnt something while never finishing the course but built a business that made a lot of money, paid a lot of tax