The Student Room Group

No 10 plans to lower salary level at which graduates start repaying loans

Article - https://www.ft.com/content/f77fe7ee-6165-427a-8754-e90d22d5689f

No final amount is specified, but the figured suggested by the Augar review suggested £23,000 in 2019 while the Higher Education Policy Institute modelled a cut to less than £20,000.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SpaceLover29
Article - https://www.ft.com/content/f77fe7ee-6165-427a-8754-e90d22d5689f

No final amount is specified, but the figured suggested by the Augar review suggested £23,000 in 2019 while the Higher Education Policy Institute modelled a cut to less than £20,000.

Oh god no! Well govt have risen the NI so they can do anything to recoup the cost of the pandemic. Bit disappointing when I'm finally climbing up the pay scale ladder to only have further deductions but it was expected to happen one day or another. Just makes me question whether I should even bother with better paid job or stick to a dead end lower paid job with what I'm going to be left with at the end of the pay check🤔
Did you realise that the FT article you have linked to can only be read by those who have a FT subscription? :confused:
Original post by londonmyst
Did you realise that the FT article you have linked to can only be read by those who have a FT subscription? :confused:

Yes, hence why I summarised the main point of the article. The rest of it was some people saying why it would be good and some saying why it would be bad.
Reply 4
Avatar for brjf
brjf
18
Original post by SpaceLover29
Article - https://www.ft.com/content/f77fe7ee-6165-427a-8754-e90d22d5689f

No final amount is specified, but the figured suggested by the Augar review suggested £23,000 in 2019 while the Higher Education Policy Institute modelled a cut to less than £20,000.


I know I saw, I don’t really know what to think about it tbh
I personally think that they should lower the level at which people start paying it back, (although I wouldn’t agree with the lower amount of under £20k) as well as extend the 30 year timeframe.

I’ve never really understood the 30 year timeframe as-if you’re graduating at say 22ish and maybe hit the repayment threshold by 25, then you stop paying when you’re 55 even though you’ll still be working and making over the threshold and haven’t fully paid it back…. Seems a bit odd to me.
Separate point but who owns the SLC?
Original post by Little pecker
Separate point but who owns the SLC?


The Student Loans Company (SLC) is an executive non-departmental public body company in the United Kingdom that provides student loans. It is owned by the UK Government's Department for Education (85%), the Scottish Government (5%), the Welsh Government (5%) and the Northern Ireland Executive (5%).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Loans_Company
Original post by GabiAbi84
The Student Loans Company (SLC) is an executive non-departmental public body company in the United Kingdom that provides student loans. It is owned by the UK Government's Department for Education (85%), the Scottish Government (5%), the Welsh Government (5%) and the Northern Ireland Executive (5%).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Loans_Company

I never trust wikipedia but I’ll bite.

So when people say the tax payer has to fork the bill, it’s really just repurposed money to the DoE. Seems like a ridiculous narrative, or am I missing something?
Original post by SpaceLover29
Article - https://www.ft.com/content/f77fe7ee-6165-427a-8754-e90d22d5689f

No final amount is specified, but the figured suggested by the Augar review suggested £23,000 in 2019 while the Higher Education Policy Institute modelled a cut to less than £20,000.

did you kno that you can post a link to a google query result that points to a page on the FT... then if people click on the link on googles page, the FT lets them read it for themselves.

e.g.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&as_epq=no+10+plans+to+lower+salary+level+at+which+graduates+start+repaying+loans&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=www.ft.com&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=
Original post by GabiAbi84
I personally think that they should lower the level at which people start paying it back, (although I wouldn’t agree with the lower amount of under £20k) as well as extend the 30 year timeframe.

I’ve never really understood the 30 year timeframe as-if you’re graduating at say 22ish and maybe hit the repayment threshold by 25, then you stop paying when you’re 55 even though you’ll still be working and making over the threshold and haven’t fully paid it back…. Seems a bit odd to me.

If any change were to happen, I'd be more open to extending the timeframe. The lowering the salary level is just an extra tax solely on young people. The lowest earners will be bit the hardest and it will just push people into financial trouble. It isn't right.
Original post by SpaceLover29
If any change were to happen, I'd be more open to extending the timeframe. The lowering the salary level is just an extra tax solely on young people. The lowest earners will be bit the hardest and it will just push people into financial trouble. It isn't right.


I mean, if they lower it to 23k then, if your salary is 26425 you’re only paying back £25 a month, it’s hardly breaking the bank is it? And when your salary hits £30k you’re only paying back £50ish.

But it would increase the amount you actually pay back which, multiplied by however many students, gives a lot more money back in the pot.

This could allow them to perhaps put a lower interest rate on it, or put a cap on how much monthly you pay back (I’m not sure if there is such a thing) or allow them to start being able to offer grants again.

Like I said, I don’t think that they should be lowering it to under the 20k mentioned as that’s when the £25 per month really could be the difference between surviving and going under money wise.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by SpaceLover29
Article - https://www.ft.com/content/f77fe7ee-6165-427a-8754-e90d22d5689f

No final amount is specified, but the figured suggested by the Augar review suggested £23,000 in 2019 while the Higher Education Policy Institute modelled a cut to less than £20,000.

Good. It ought to be proper debt, not, effectively, a graduate tax for those that will never pay it all back. Loan amounts should be based on the course (future salary expectations), not parental income.
Original post by RogerOxon
Good. It ought to be proper debt, not, effectively, a graduate tax for those that will never pay it all back. Loan amounts should be based on the course (future salary expectations), not parental income.

What a brilliant way to deter people from going to university...

I'm sure the government would love your ideas!
Original post by RogerOxon
Good. It ought to be proper debt, not, effectively, a graduate tax for those that will never pay it all back. Loan amounts should be based on the course (future salary expectations), not parental income.


An interesting concept…
How would you propose that working?

And why? When a students living expenses are pretty much the same no matter which course they did. That would only serve to lower intake for those subjects/courses which have a lower future salary income as people could not afford to go. To what end?
Also remember that National Insurance is increasing plus, those who can afford to pay off their student finance quickly or never get it in the first place will barely be impacted by this. It is a way to increase the tax paid by the young and less well-off people whilst everyone who has money can sit by whilst nothing changes for them. It isn't right.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by SpaceLover29
Also remember that National Insurance is increasing plus, those who can afford to pay off their student finance quickly or never get it in the first place will barely be impacted by this. It is a way to increase the tax paid by the young and less well-off people whilst everyone who has money can sit by whilst nothing changes for them. It isn't right.


It is a way to increase the percentage of people who pay back what they owe from the 66% that currently pay back any and the 12% that pay back it all.

There are a lot of ways where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer-this is a way to ensure that those who have been given money to increase their education/skills/employability etc, pay a bit more back to the pot to keep it going for the next lot.
Original post by SpaceLover29
If any change were to happen, I'd be more open to extending the timeframe. The lowering the salary level is just an extra tax solely on young people. The lowest earners will be bit the hardest and it will just push people into financial trouble. It isn't right.

Taking on debt that you can't afford to repay does that. Why should the tax payer fund only the degrees that don't enable their holders to repay their debt?
Original post by SpaceLover29
What a brilliant way to deter people from going to university...

I'm sure the government would love your ideas!

How many noddy degrees should the tax payer fund? What value are they to the UK economy?
Original post by GabiAbi84
An interesting concept…
How would you propose that working?

And why? When a students living expenses are pretty much the same no matter which course they did. That would only serve to lower intake for those subjects/courses which have a lower future salary income as people could not afford to go. To what end?

Reducing the cost to the UK tax payer. Why should they fund yet more over-priced, and (economically) useless, degrees?

It really seems that many expect the tax payer to fund university, even when they clearly didn't understand their A level subjects. Funding easy degrees is a waste of money.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you