It's a tax on young people that go to university.
Maybe this a good change if apprenticeships and sponsorship is up to scratch.
Doesn't stop anyone going, makes them look at alternatives and isn't just something everyone does.
Tories lost the 2019 election among working age adults
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
It's a tax on young people that go to university.
Maybe this a good change if apprenticeships and sponsorship is up to scratch.
Doesn't stop anyone going, makes them look at alternatives and isn't just something everyone does.
While I don't agree with the way the Gov is going about this... Zarah is being disingenuous as always. Her tweet implies it's going up to 9-12% and staying there, when in reality it's going to spike up above current rates due to inflation, and then at a later date it's intended to drop to 0% for a year to account for the current spike, and then back to ~4.5%:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/16024
It's a poorly thought out policy and in an ideal world the smoothed out blue model on the graph would be better, but it's not just the Tories randomly deciding to put up student loans.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/16024
It's a poorly thought out policy and in an ideal world the smoothed out blue model on the graph would be better, but it's not just the Tories randomly deciding to put up student loans.
YOU'RE being disingenuous. Her tweet doesn't imply anything excessive, and even her example of how much in cash terms it will go up by is for a 6 month period at these rates.
I'd also suggest that a government who gives 2% public sector pay rises, but 12% loan rates, is being ******* disingenuous about inflation!
Deleted member 68110
Deleted member 68110
Putting to one side your insistence about Sultana saying something she doesn't appear to have said, please tell me more about what looks to be another great "jam tomorrow" policy from this utterly trustworthy government.While I don't agree with the way the Gov is going about this... Zarah is being disingenuous as always. Her tweet implies it's going up to 9-12% and staying there, when in reality it's going to spike up above current rates due to inflation, and then at a later date it's intended to drop to 0% for a year to account for the current spike, and then back to ~4.5%:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/16024
It's a poorly thought out policy and in an ideal world the smoothed out blue model on the graph would be better, but it's not just the Tories randomly deciding to put up student loans.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,770
RPI + 3% is already close to being at the high end for a loan, let alone a government backed one with long repayment times.
From what I read the reason the rate may drop to 0 isn’t due to RPI falling (I’m not sure it will ever go below 0 with the RPI +3 rule as the lowest recorded is -1.2). The reason is that the system is not allowed to cost more than a personally taken out commercial loan. That’s is why the rate will fall in future years.
From what I read the reason the rate may drop to 0 isn’t due to RPI falling (I’m not sure it will ever go below 0 with the RPI +3 rule as the lowest recorded is -1.2). The reason is that the system is not allowed to cost more than a personally taken out commercial loan. That’s is why the rate will fall in future years.
That's the "tax" part. People have got something of value (well, maybe some didn't but that's another point) for the money and it's right they pay it back.
Whacking interest on the loan is just another way to raise funds off people I guess, or there is a technical requirement for it.
Surely the "tax" part is when these young graduates go out and get higher earning jobs resulting in them paying more "tax"?
£3k in interest over 6 months is absolutely insane, that basically adds another 2-3 years of repayments even for someone on a decent wage. Might as well just get Wonga to provide the finance
If that were the universal experience of graduates I'd agree, but it's not. Not all university education outcomes are equal and some are better off long term not going and instead getting into employment earlier or learning a trade.
Still, the paying back part shouldn't be turning people away that really want or need to go to university to fulfil their plans. It probably will, which is likely a problem especially for those from poorer backgrounds. More affluent students may be able to get parents to cover part of it tonreduce the impact of the interest rate for example.
Because loans cost money and it seems fair that the recipients of those loans should pay for them.
If you want every man and his dog to go to university and "study" for 3+ years to get a **** job then yes, someone has to pay for it and it should probably be the people getting the pointless degrees. Long gone are the days when a degree was a guarantee of something.
I would be all for there being a massive reduction in degree offerings and a much higher emphasis placed on apprenticeships but that won't happen because too many people have a hard on for the idea of social mobility simple through higher education.
I would be all for there being a massive reduction in degree offerings and a much higher emphasis placed on apprenticeships but that won't happen because too many people have a hard on for the idea of social mobility simple through higher education.
The alternative is that educating the population to a reasonable level that allows them good career prospects should come from general taxation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 4,345
- Location
- In a world of my own - but it's ok, they know me.
That's not the alternative, that's the standard - that's what happens today. The entire population is educated up to the age of 18 with an education that is sufficient to enter the workplace in a good career and is paid for out of general taxation. Anyone who want a better than good career can pay for the additional education needed to earn more money.
The world is changing, educating people up until 18 doesn't give you the opportunities it did 30 years ago. Now you need more skills to be able to achieve a similar quality of life. Long ago, we only educated people until 15 years old, before that it was 12. By your logic, we should have never extended state-funded education beyond those years as times and the need of the workforce changed.
This isn't even controversial. Scotland does it. Lots of other European countries do it. We can too. Not doing it is a choice, again due to our country being hostile to young people.
Good point. If we make education easier, they're less likely to vote for Tories.
Theres also looking at it from the other angle. Those who do worthwhile degrees and end up with high paying jobs afterwards are doubly penalised. They pay more in tax from their higher earnings and they pay more back from their loans, but at least when i went to uni there was a realistic chance of actually paying it back during your lifetime, which meant it was a worthwhile investment. As others have already said, its now become basically a tax on people who went to uni, as unless you're earning 6 figures, chances of paying it off within the 40 years are pretty slim.
Meanwhile those who do a degree with poor job prospects and basically use uni as an opportunity to party for 3 years and then end up in lower paid work will potentially never even reach the threshold to start paying back, so the loan amount & interest rate is completely irrelevant.
It seems a better option might be simply for parents to remortgage and provide the "loan" themselves, giving a far better rate!
What about the businesses that want a better than good qualified workforce? We're told the Conservatives want Britain to be a high-skill, high-wage country....
I guess that explains why the Conservatives keep increasing immigration numbers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 4,345
- Location
- In a world of my own - but it's ok, they know me.
Such Hyperbolic nonsense.