Original post by tazarooni89Well as I said, that depends on what the terms and conditions of the loan are, as well as the interest rate that it's based on.
Under previous arrangements where the interest rate was hardly any greater than inflation, and under which some people paid back a lot less than they borrowed whereas nobody repaid significantly more than they borrowed (in real terms), then yes it would cost a lot to give out too many of these loans.
Under current arrangements where the debt is taken on by a private company at interest rates and terms and conditions set by them, there's no reason why it would "cost more to give everyone the same amount of loan", because each loan should be designed such that, all risks considered, it is expected to yield a profit for the lender.
It can, but the point is that family income is not their own income. They have no automatic right to it, and so they should be assumed by the government to be as poor as each other.
If the student is then fortunate enough to receive even more money from their parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, friends and other relatives, winning the lottery or wherever, that's just their own business. It should never be assumed that students will receive extra money from additional sources, because there's absolutely no guarantee that they will. If they do, it's lucky for them, they can spend it on lots of nights out. But if they don't, they shouldn't be rendered unable to go to university due to the lack of basic financial support.
I don't think the loans need to be based on household income at all, because the loan doesn't get repaid from the student's household income. It gets repaid from their own earnings once they start working after university. It's at that point that the poor need to be subsidised by the rich, when the payments are being made - not from beforehand, when they're all just receiving money.