Tuition Fees Under Review: PM proposes to cut tuition fee cost for some courses
Scroll to see replies
Original post by winterscoming
Er, no I didn't. Where do you believe I said that?
And I previously said that I agree the graduate should pay for it, but that their ability to pay for it needs to be means tested based on their circumstances, of which income is only one factor
And I previously said that I agree the graduate should pay for it, but that their ability to pay for it needs to be means tested based on their circumstances, of which income is only one factor
Your constructive criticism of the proposal suggests that you dislike the way in which Student Loans (since it is in effect, a tax) are paid.
So I assumed that you would rather tuition be free, my bad.
However, how would the UK decide whether a graduate can afford to pay for it in a way that wouldn't have lots of loopholes.
Should we factor income after housing (only the most expensive house they own, so that it doesn't make the housing crisis worse) and Income Taxes/NICs/other have been paid?
(edited 6 years ago)
I had a great time finding out that I'm about to pay £90 less student loan a year, even though I'm moving to a better-paid job at the start of April!
On a personal level, they can do whatever they want as long as they don't increase the 9% repayment amount.
On a political level, how the **** have a government managed to rack up £60k debt on someone with a 6.1% interest rate, which increases faster than anyone could pay it off - someone earning £75k a year only just starts to pay it off by about £1,000 a year. Assuming that's 20 years into someone's career - and you'd have to be very good to get that kind of salary unless you're in the City, they're not going to be paying it off by the 30 year write-off.
I like Justine Greening's suggestion of a graduate NI that goes into a HE fund which is in lieu of fees. Students then take out the maintenance loans to cover the cost of living.
Strong and stable etc.
On a personal level, they can do whatever they want as long as they don't increase the 9% repayment amount.
On a political level, how the **** have a government managed to rack up £60k debt on someone with a 6.1% interest rate, which increases faster than anyone could pay it off - someone earning £75k a year only just starts to pay it off by about £1,000 a year. Assuming that's 20 years into someone's career - and you'd have to be very good to get that kind of salary unless you're in the City, they're not going to be paying it off by the 30 year write-off.
I like Justine Greening's suggestion of a graduate NI that goes into a HE fund which is in lieu of fees. Students then take out the maintenance loans to cover the cost of living.
Strong and stable etc.
Original post by Roving Fish
I had a great time finding out that I'm about to pay £90 less student loan a year, even though I'm moving to a better-paid job at the start of April!
On a personal level, they can do whatever they want as long as they don't increase the 9% repayment amount.
On a political level, how the **** have a government managed to rack up £60k debt on someone with a 6.1% interest rate, which increases faster than anyone could pay it off - someone earning £75k a year only just starts to pay it off by about £1,000 a year. Assuming that's 20 years into someone's career - and you'd have to be very good to get that kind of salary unless you're in the City, they're not going to be paying it off by the 30 year write-off.
I like Justine Greening's suggestion of a graduate NI that goes into a HE fund which is in lieu of fees. Students then take out the maintenance loans to cover the cost of living.
Strong and stable etc.
On a personal level, they can do whatever they want as long as they don't increase the 9% repayment amount.
On a political level, how the **** have a government managed to rack up £60k debt on someone with a 6.1% interest rate, which increases faster than anyone could pay it off - someone earning £75k a year only just starts to pay it off by about £1,000 a year. Assuming that's 20 years into someone's career - and you'd have to be very good to get that kind of salary unless you're in the City, they're not going to be paying it off by the 30 year write-off.
I like Justine Greening's suggestion of a graduate NI that goes into a HE fund which is in lieu of fees. Students then take out the maintenance loans to cover the cost of living.
Strong and stable etc.
Yes Justine has quite a sensible view on this (incidentally disagreeing about fee cuts was a major part of why she was sacked). However given the state of the commons I doubt they would get anything slightly contentious like that through.
Original post by Sceptical_John
Yes Justine has quite a sensible view on this (incidentally disagreeing about fee cuts was a major part of why she was sacked). However given the state of the commons I doubt they would get anything slightly contentious like that through.
PS. I'm one of those arts students that some other people in this thread don't seem to think exist - graduated and in a well paid job that contributes to society.
Original post by Roving Fish
I like Justine Greening's suggestion of a graduate NI that goes into a HE fund which is in lieu of fees. Students then take out the maintenance loans to cover the cost of living.
Strong and stable etc.
Strong and stable etc.
So poor students who have no choice but to take out full maintenance loans end up having the most debt? No thanks - and Justine Greening advocated the return of the maintenance grants. She was allegedly forced our because that idea was too radical for the Maybot.
I dislike the idea of a graduate tax/NI, it's just another way of piling the full cost of higher education onto students even though businesses and society at large benefit from having a well-educated workforce. General taxation pays for everything else, why not university?
Original post by Snufkin
So poor students who have no choice but to take out full maintenance loans end up having the most debt? No thanks - and Justine Greening advocated the return of the maintenance grants. She was allegedly forced our because that idea was too radical for the Maybot.
I dislike the idea of a graduate tax/NI, it's just another way of piling the full cost of higher education onto students even though businesses and society at large benefit from having a well-educated workforce. General taxation pays for everything else, why not university?
I dislike the idea of a graduate tax/NI, it's just another way of piling the full cost of higher education onto students even though businesses and society at large benefit from having a well-educated workforce. General taxation pays for everything else, why not university?
I was one of those students, but I take your point.
Re: general taxation - because it won't be supported by those who are typically poorer, who didn't go to university.
Original post by Roving Fish
I was one of those students, but I take your point.
Re: general taxation - because it won't be supported by those who are typically poorer, who didn't go to university.
Re: general taxation - because it won't be supported by those who are typically poorer, who didn't go to university.
Graduates on average earn more and therefore pay more tax, thus they are supporting services that "typically poor" people use. Why shouldn't your employer contribute to the cost of your education through taxation? They need your skills, therefore they should help pay for it.
Could they look at how places like Germany manage to provide it for free? Having tuition fees vary by subject seems very weird. Has potential to push students into subjects they're less good at just 'cause they're cheaper.
But mehh if the review's gonna take over a year then I don't think this discussion is really going to matter. A lot will have probably changed on the political scene by then.
tfw a utilitarian somehow ignores a good 70% of the classical utility calculus.
But mehh if the review's gonna take over a year then I don't think this discussion is really going to matter. A lot will have probably changed on the political scene by then.
Original post by purpsdonk
They're cutting costs for the majority, given that they are harming the minority. As a utilitarian, I see this to be ok.
tfw a utilitarian somehow ignores a good 70% of the classical utility calculus.
That was a rather tedious speech by Mrs May... no detail?
Original post by Snufkin
That was a rather tedious speech by Mrs May... no detail?
My favourite question was from The S*n... totally off topic.
Original post by Helloworld_95
To be fair they're not cutting bursaries, just removing the requirement for universities to give as many as they do. Given that a lot of universities go above and beyond in this regard already, it probably won't make a whole lot of difference. Additionally having seen a lot of people who are in the bracket where they're getting these kind of bursaries, and in fact being in a similar situation myself albeit with less maintenance money and no bursary, they didn't affect anyone's choice to go to university and are more seen as a bonus. The basic loan for people with parents in the required income bracket is more than enough to live on, let alone with bursaries on top, though I could perhaps see the benefits for sportspeople and those at unis with more expensive living costs e.g. the London unis, Durham, Brighton, etc. The biggest deterrent I've seen is the lack of understanding of how you pay back your loans rather than the amount of money itself.
Yes, it does benefit high earners more as they're now more likely to pay it off, but at the same time this applies to middle earners also.
Essentially there's no real way of winning. Cut fees and higher earners benefit at the cost of universities or students from poorer backgrounds, and some of that burden will also be pushed to internationals. Increase fees and you help the universities but put off people from poorer backgrounds, punish higher earners, probably punish international students as universities will want to maintain the premium cost. Eliminate fees and you either have to implement a graduate tax which comes with a bunch of problems or you put the burden on the taxpayer, and you likely end up reducing the amount of money going to universities at the same time.
Yes, it does benefit high earners more as they're now more likely to pay it off, but at the same time this applies to middle earners also.
Essentially there's no real way of winning. Cut fees and higher earners benefit at the cost of universities or students from poorer backgrounds, and some of that burden will also be pushed to internationals. Increase fees and you help the universities but put off people from poorer backgrounds, punish higher earners, probably punish international students as universities will want to maintain the premium cost. Eliminate fees and you either have to implement a graduate tax which comes with a bunch of problems or you put the burden on the taxpayer, and you likely end up reducing the amount of money going to universities at the same time.
This isn't true for many students because the accomodation costs are becoming so high in many Universities, about £7000 a year at Durham not far below the full Student Finance, that poor students will no longer be able to afford many Universities because poor students also have many other costs to pay for like paying their parents when they come home outside term time because their parents can't afford to pay for them while they at home even.
I don't think I would have gone to Durham University if it wasn't for the bursary scheme as I couldn't have afforded the accomodation.
The move by the Government to raise Tuition Fees to £9000 was an excellent move for many reasons the first was that it was introduced alongside the raising of the threshold for which students would pay back the money and thus this meant that the lower earning students would pay less and the higher earning students would be paying back much more due to the massive increase in fees and also very importantly the requirement that Universities provide bursaries for poor students.
I don't really get why people dislike the concept of tuition fees so much. It's like suppose a friend paid something for you when you didn't have much money and then you started earning lots of money. It would be reasonable wouldn't it for you to then give back something your friend now wouldn't it?
Also, they seem to help reduce inequality as high earners pay back much more money. Although, the very highest earners can pay back a bit less due to interest rates so its not entirely perfect but it's a pretty good way of reducing inequality to me and seems to be a left wing policy because it helps the poorest. However, bizarrely the left wing parties seem to be against Tuition Fees and the right wing parties for Tuition Fees.
To add to this, its worth pointing out that in Scotland, where there is free tuition, there is much less participation of disadvantaged students in higher education probably because of reduced funding available as a result proving that Tuition Fees help the poorest students.
I think that what is really going on with many of these left wingers so against Tuition Fees is that they are really fake left wingers and probably when they get richer will start voting for the Tories because they never seem to expect themselves to be the ones to pay for things its always the rich, which to be fair should certainly pay a lot more, who should pay for every single thing imaginable and they will always claim however much they earn that they aren't rich by increasing the amount of income required to be classed as rich.
It's a shame that left wingers still are getting manipulated by fake left wingers getting upset because they might have to pay for something and not be entitled to everything.
Original post by Snufkin
Graduates on average earn more and therefore pay more tax, thus they are supporting services that "typically poor" people use. Why shouldn't your employer contribute to the cost of your education through taxation? They need your skills, therefore they should help pay for it.
There's two arguments here:
1. uni grads earn more thus pay more tax for services to non grads should be happy to pay for this
2. business benefit from grads so they should pay up.
On point 2 I think there's agreement here and there is a levy looking to come in if not already for large companies to contribute.
Point 1 is a lot more complex. Why should a bus driver who's worked since 17 and trying to get on the housing ladder pay for a middle class kids education when the parents can already afford this? The obvious difference with the NHS for why we're all happy to contribute is that it's there for all of us if we need it. You can make the case for it but to me it's this kind of arrogance which Brexit & Trump largely grew out of.
Original post by Roving Fish
On a political level, how the **** have a government managed to rack up £60k debt on someone with a 6.1% interest rate, which increases faster than anyone could pay it off - someone earning £75k a year only just starts to pay it off by about £1,000 a year. Assuming that's 20 years into someone's career - and you'd have to be very good to get that kind of salary unless you're in the City, they're not going to be paying it off by the 30 year write-off.
I think that's what the Conservatives want:
I think technically, both the conservatives and labour tax the rich more, just different scopes. Conservatives want rich bankers to pay tax because their success was caused by them studying at Cambridge/other uni.
Labour just want to tax the rich either because they have a moral duty to or because they're so arrogant to believe the bankers success are caused by the government (regardless of whether they went to Uni)
(I mean, they were the ones to claim "to have ended "Tory" boom and bust.", what isn't arrogant about that)
Original post by Roving Fish
I like Justine Greening's suggestion of a graduate NI that goes into a HE fund which is in lieu of fees. Students then take out the maintenance loans to cover the cost of living.
Strong and stable etc.
Strong and stable etc.
What do you mean by this?
Original post by Sceptical_John
Point 1 is a lot more complex. Why should a bus driver who's worked since 17 and trying to get on the housing ladder pay for a middle class kids education when the parents can already afford this? The obvious difference with the NHS for why we're all happy to contribute is that it's there for all of us if we need it. You can make the case for it but to me it's this kind of arrogance which Brexit & Trump largely grew out of.
That bus driver is also paying for services and institutions that don't benefit him, that's how the tax system works. I'm yet to read a convincing argument for why higher education alone should be treated differently. To take just one example, the arts are to a large extent publicly funded - not everyone goes to the Opera, Ballet, theatre or visits museums, does that mean this places shouldn't receive tax payer's money? Should people without children not pay for government childcare schemes? Should people who don't drive have to pay for road upkeep?
Original post by Snufkin
That bus driver is also paying for services and institutions that don't benefit him, that's how the tax system works. I'm yet to read a convincing argument for why higher education alone should be treated differently. To take just one example, the arts are to a large extent publicly funded - not everyone goes to the Opera, Ballet, theatre or visits museums, does that mean this places shouldn't receive tax payer's money? Should people without children not pay for government childcare schemes? Should people who don't drive have to pay for road upkeep?
People who don't drive do in fact pay for road upkeep it comes out of general maintenance. And anyone could go to the museum / ballet if they wanted (even if not were talking peanuts in monetry terms if it cost anywhere near as much as education it would be dead in seconds)
To be honest Im not really even saying argument doesn't work economically it 's just not politically viable.
Original post by Sceptical_John
People who don't drive do in fact pay for road upkeep it comes out of general maintenance. And anyone could go to the museum / ballet if they wanted (even if not were talking peanuts in monetry terms if it cost anywhere near as much as education it would be dead in seconds)
To be honest Im not really even saying argument doesn't work economically it 's just not politically viable.
To be honest Im not really even saying argument doesn't work economically it 's just not politically viable.
Anyone can go to university, too.
Art subjects are definitely worthwhile to society there may just not be as a great a material benefit. Charging different amounts for different subjects would be completely unfair as it's basically implying that one subject is more valuable than others however when it comes to education, the earning potential of your degree shouldn't be the point of your degree, is the point is to learn. I would be in favour of more subsidisation if there was a cap on university places which iirc was scrapped a few years ago.
I lie within the category of being a poorer student and therefore I will graduate with the greatest debt however due to how the student loan is paid off, I don't really care. The number is basically immaterial. It doesn't however take a genius to work out that with most people not paying back their student loans, that the government will have a massive shortfall when they start getting written off in 20-30 years time.
I lie within the category of being a poorer student and therefore I will graduate with the greatest debt however due to how the student loan is paid off, I don't really care. The number is basically immaterial. It doesn't however take a genius to work out that with most people not paying back their student loans, that the government will have a massive shortfall when they start getting written off in 20-30 years time.
Original post by winterscoming
Er, no I didn't. Where do you believe I said that? Please see my post above where I said I agree with the principle of education being paid for by the people who benefit from it, with the caveat that payments need to be means-tested based on circumstances, and ensuring paying for their education does not leave them unable to acquire wealth for themselves.
(By the way, I'm not claiming that the existing system is any better - both earnings taxes and loan repayments have exactly the same problem)
And I previously said that I agree the graduate should pay for it, but that their ability to pay for it needs to be means tested based on their circumstances.
(By the way, I'm not claiming that the existing system is any better - both earnings taxes and loan repayments have exactly the same problem)
And I previously said that I agree the graduate should pay for it, but that their ability to pay for it needs to be means tested based on their circumstances.
Isn't the fact that there's a threshold (25K) and that the tax on incomes over this amount is a % mean that it is mean-tested.
Your means (income, savings and other capital) will be looked at to see if they are low/high enough for you to qualify
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Top universities ‘will turn away more UK students’
- University isn’t as good as it used to be?
- Do you get paid to do a PhD or do you pay to do a Phd? Or both??
- Doing grad medicine?
- Seeking Advice on Student Finance Refusal for Second Degree Funding
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Student Finance Problem- Second Degree
- 2 years of previous study can I get funding for Midwifery?
- Tuition Fee Loan rejected for second degree - but it's an AHP course?
- help with finances, graduate medicine?
- OU funding
- Mature student maintenance loans and grants
- Funding for a PGCE course?
- transfer to open university- student finance
- NHS and Student Finance Wales
- Accelerated Medicine
- Medicine 2nd Degree
- veterinary medicine as a second degree
- maintainance loan for eu students
- Kingston University Study Abroad Program
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 25 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1021
Last reply 26 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 27 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 32 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Posted 33 minutes ago
Occupational therapy wolverhampton universityLast reply 37 minutes ago
Does LSE accept students who reapply?
