Be Excellent To Each Other

I feel uncomfortable about the working class carrying the burden of the property aspirations of the bourgeois.

Don't HM Treasury sit on repayments for a year or so to earn the interest, then pay it to the Loans Company, or something?

That's a silly idea.

One of my mates paid his off as soon as he graduated and I don't think he got any penalties.

Good-oh, but what's that got to do with tuition fees?

Erm..

Student loans aren't considered on mortgage applications. Or at least, they weren't on mine.

Or ours.

Yeah, but how does that mean that the working class are carrying the burden of other people's property aspirations? It just means their property aspirations will be less.

Nor mine.

It does rather effect your net pay, however, which is what you will be using to pay off your mortgage.

When you sell debt (in the form of bonds), you can get a much better rate if early repayments are rare or non-existant (think mortgages) than if early repayments are common (think credit cards). This is because it makes the bond's rate of return more stable. This is part of why mortgage APRs are so much lower than more liquid debt. So that's the motivation; pretty crappy decision for the students though.

How much is it going to be per month for a £27k student?

[edit]@Mr Chris

Because they have to help fund the middle classes through university to no benefit of their own to make it easier for the middle classes to get houses and stuffs and I don't think that that is correct.

When I was earning a little less than that, I think I was paying off about a ton a month, pre tax, as a comparator.

By paying tuition fees they won't be helping fund middle classes. The middle classes will be paying their own fees, assuming they earn enough. If they don't then everyone will be paying their fees by way of tax.

Grim...- it depends how much you're earning, doesn't it? I'm not convinced the Treasury will have calculated the amounts so that they're low enough per month that everyone can still afford a house, though.

Thanks for that.

Thems working classes that ain't gone to uni, guvn'r. It is those that has what will profits from the sweat, blood and toil of the workers who was gone paid taxes so thems could pay less fees.

I don't know if it's a different calculation under the new system, but currently the repayment is calculated on your salary, not your debt. The almighty listentotaxman.com will calculate it for you for different salaries.

Eh?

(a) Everyone in work pays tax, not just poor people.

(b) Taxpayers already pay for 60% of the fees, so this will only reduce the tax burden for it.

Historical positions:

State funding of all places, no fees - taxpayers pay for students to go to university.
Tutition fees introduced - Students pay a massive £20 a week to attend university
MOAR fees - Students pay more

I think that an increase in tuition fees will 'greatly disadvantage students in their ability to pay for houses' is unfair on those tax payers who haven't gone to university and as a result have supported the middle classes ability to pay for houses after they graduate. I can't think of a clearer way to put it than in my original post that

"The working classes, through tax, shouldn't bear the cost of the middle classes desire to own property."

Which one could refine to:

"The poor shouldn't have to fund the middle classes through university due to the desire of the middle classes to more easily aquire stuff"

Oh, I get you - I thought you meant that the fees change was unfair in this respect, not my proposal that we should go back to the previous system because the new one would disadvantage all graduates, whether from rich or poor backgrounds.

Someone on Question time said it better I think.

I can't see how the new system disadvantages poorer people over richer people, though.

Other than in so far as the less well off are more likely to have to repay the fees themselves rather than getting Daddy to do it (and so avoiding interest also), and are more likely to be put off by fear of such huge debt due to lack of parental back-up.

Lots of data here:

• fees over £6k/yr attract penalties for the Unis (eg a requirement to offern burseries and scolarships), so expect to see many courses capped to that amount.
• repayments are 9% of gross income above the £21k threshold. So that's £30 per month (pre tax) if you start on £25k after graduation. At that rate it'll take 50 year to repay the principle before inflationary interest is accounted for!
• graduates who go on to earn more than £41k will be charged 3% interest on top of the inflation on the outstanding loan amount. (but still charged penalty fees for early repayments?)
• any debt outstanding after 30 years will be annulled; could be that as many as three quarters never repay their loans.

Look, I'm not having a debate ruined by facts, Doc. Fuck off.

It comes out of wages, before they even see it, and affects al equally and I don't think you should legislate against people being rich.

I'll try and think of a way to clarify my thoughts and position and come back to you, as my head isn't working very well at the moment and I've got to head out in a bit. I shall reply from the Madding where I shall have a pint.

£30 pcm sounds pretty fucking reasonable.

Hang on - I think you mean 187pcm, doc, not 30pcm. 9% of 25k/12 is 187.

Above teh 21k threshold.

so 25,000-21000/100*9/12=£30

Also worth noting that the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that the new systems is fairer than the told system, fairer than the Browne report, and fairer than the propositions of the Tories and of Labour.

Still, those bastard Lib Dems, eh?

*Note - I admittedly have no idea how they define 'fairer'

That has nothing to do with the psychology of knowing you owe someone thirty thousand pounds, of course. My mortgage direct debit goes out day after my wages are deposited, so I don't meaningfully see that either, but it still weighs in my decisions about money.

Snow White does.

4k, not 25k.

One of those labels that everyone uses and nobody defines. Lack of definitions is why I get bored listening to political debates. You support fairness? Yay! Go fairness! Er, what do you think is 'fair'?

Ah, right. DocG's post was worded in such a way as to be able to be read the way I did. Or something.

What, this bit?

Yes, I can certainly understand how you misread that. To get to the root of the problem, however, we need to ignore the words I wrote and instead x-ray your skull.

Only if you read it wrong.

Did we see this, BTW?

No.

Based on what I've read this morning, it could be fairer because poor people can go to Uni, make tiny repayments for thirty years they barely feel, leave most of the debt oustanding, then write it off. Hurrah!

Hardy har har.

Easily read as meaning that repayments are 9% once your income is above 21k.

Clearly this is so, because I'm not thick and that's how I read it.

In that case, it sort of stops being a loan, and just becomes some sort of odd, time-bound graduate income tax. And the government still fund higher education, it's just moved around the balance sheet a bit.

Yeah, quite. Someone else can do the maths, but if only a quarter of the fees are going to be paid off in full, that could actually end up meaning that they'll be receiving less from the students than they do now.

Ha -

"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want and their kids pay for it."
Quote from US politician Richard Lamm

I wonder what the worse amount to be earning over your life before it gets annulled is? There must be a sweet spot where you're paying it off, but slowly enough so you're still paying for the whole time period, whereas someone earning ten grand more than you would pay off less overall.

It's also worth pointing out that the IFS are also quite critical of the system, pointing out a few obvious flaws that probably would be rectified if the Government weren't quite so keen on rushing it through Parliament, and point out that, based on parental income, the new system means that poorer students will pay more than under the current system.

As for the £6,000 cap - if the universities need to charge in the range of 7-8k to replace the educational grant, expect them to head towards £9,000 even with offering bursaries…

Jesus christ.

some of the comments on this police blog are rather telling.

Some snippets:










Delightful.