Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    My argument is perfectly clear: that it is perverse that I should pay more for the same service than someone who squandered it solely on the basis that I used it productively.

    Those who earn more already pay much more into the system. We don't particularly need to add to that with an unfair tax tied perversely to a specific service.
    You sound like one of those CEOs who claim that they worked hard to get where they are, implying that everyone else that isn't a multimillionaire CEO is simply bone idle.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps this won't be popular but we should be grateful for the system we have in place. In America the fees are just as high but they don't have anything like the student loans system which we have in place. If we in the UK are unemployed or have a low salary job we either don't pay our loan back or pay something proportional to what we earn. While in the U.S. they have bank loans where they must pay back lump sums every month and with a high amount of interest, no matter what their circumstances are. This is the same for many countries in the world.

    For instance I graduated nearly 4 years ago (scary!) and I have paid back little of my student loan because I have never made the minimum salary and in all honesty I probably won't pay back even my maintance loan back let alone my tuition fees loan before it is wiped in 15 or years' or so time. (Assuming things continue as they are of course). Consequently I am very grateful of the system in place and I think an increase in fees will only affect a few people as a whole. So long as it is proportional to how much you earn I can't see how most people will pay it all back no matter how much they earn. The people who would be most effected are those who have very high salaries and have to pay a far high proportion back.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You sound like one of those CEOs who claim that they worked hard to get where they are, implying that everyone else that isn't a multimillionaire CEO is simply bone idle.
    It is simply unavoidable that there are plenty of people who exist who could have used their degrees to achieve success, but didn't. I'm not going to pay an unbounded amount for my degree while those people are rewarded for their sloth.

    Others may have achieved highly at university, and yet chosen to go into a field that pays less. I still don't see why their education should be made retrospectively cheaper on that basis, while financially successful graduates pay endlessly more for theirs.

    I'm just about okay with the present system, because it is at least possible to pay for your education and be done with it. Removing all limits, however, is mad, and would be maddening to many of the graduates whom we most want to keep in this country.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)

    I'm just about okay with the present system, because it is at least possible to pay for your education and be done with it. Removing all limits, however, is mad, and would be maddening to many of the graduates whom we most want to keep in this country.
    Removing which limits?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Removing which limits?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The limit of an absolute sum which can actually be repaid, in the case of the imposition of a graduate tax.

    Unless I'm missing something?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It is simply unavoidable that there are plenty of people who exist who could have used their degrees to achieve success, but didn't. I'm not going to pay an unbounded amount for my degree while those people are rewarded for their sloth.

    Others may have achieved highly at university, and yet chosen to go into a field that pays less. I still don't see why their education should be made retrospectively cheaper on that basis, while financially successful graduates pay endlessly more for theirs.

    I'm just about okay with the present system, because it is at least possible to pay for your education and be done with it. Removing all limits, however, is mad, and would be maddening to many of the graduates whom we most want to keep in this country.
    It's not endlessly more. There are clear limits on how much you'd pay. Worse case scenario you earn just enough to not have any written off but not enough to pay it off early, under which case you'd end up paying about 14k in interest over the 30 years.
    It's also not a case of 'sloth' being rewarded. That's a poisonous attitude.
    There's also the fact that low earning degrees generally subsidise STEM subjects that cost a heck of a lot more than 9k a year to teach per student. Swings and roundabouts man.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It's not endlessly more. There are clear limits on how much you'd pay. Worse case scenario you earn just enough to not have any written off but not enough to pay it off early, under which case you'd end up paying about 14k in interest over the 30 years.
    It's also not a case of 'sloth' being rewarded. That's a poisonous attitude.
    There's also the fact that low earning degrees generally subsidise STEM subjects that cost a heck of a lot more than 9k a year to teach per student. Swings and roundabouts man.
    It's an accurate attitude, but I wasn't aware it was limited to be fair. What you've described looks to me more like the present position, and less like something I'd call a 'tax'. I would still be surprised if it didn't involve a shift upwards from the present limits on repayment.

    I don't mind subsidy for STEM courses, but it isn't the same thing. It rewards students for choosing to do something that we need people to do, not for earning less money. Everyone has the choice to take a STEM course, and anyway this is largely just a function of the standard fee cap (presumably all courses would be more expensive in a free market, at some universities at least).
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The limit of an absolute sum which can actually be repaid, in the case of the imposition of a graduate tax.

    Unless I'm missing something?
    According to the proposal tuition fees can increase but only in line with inflation and assuming quality standards are being met by the university. It's not unlimited.

    (If that's what you mean?)
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It's not endlessly more. There are clear limits on how much you'd pay.
    (Original post by SLC terms and conditions)
    The regulations may change from time totime and this means the terms of your loan mayalso change.
    https://www.saas.gov.uk/_forms/slc_terms_conditions.pdf page 2
    This government has already changed the terms of repayment for 2012 entrants (they froze the minimum income for repayment effectively increasing repayments by £100pa for 80% of graduates (all but the poorest and richest 10%s). That change didn't require amended legislation only to be included as a small paragraph in a budget.

    They can and will change the terms of your loans again if it will balance their budget.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    This letter is particularly interesting!

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Tuition fees can only increase in line with inflation, maximum, and assuming quality standards are being met by the university. It's not unlimited.

    (If that's what you mean?)
    No, I mean that the maximum amount that can presently be repaid by any given graduate is limited by reference to what they paid in the first place (with interest etc), because the matter is dealt with as the repayment of a loan rather than as a tax.

    I'm opposed to the idea of a tax because in principle it could remove this limit on what may have to be paid after graduation by any particular graduate, although apparently there have been some proposals which still involve some limits on repayment.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, I mean that the maximum amount that can presently be repaid by any given graduate is limited by reference to what they paid in the first place (with interest etc), because the matter is dealt with as the repayment of a loan rather than as a tax.

    I'm opposed to the idea of a tax because in principle it could remove this limit on what may have to be paid after graduation by any particular graduate, although apparently there have been some proposals which still involve some limits on repayment.
    So you are ok with the current repayment regime (and afaik it's unchanged in the white paper).
    :yep:
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Incongruous)
    This letter is particularly interesting!

    Interesting indeed - more on it here
    http://thetab.com/2016/05/17/george-...e-unfair-90379

    Although a week is a long time in politics, never mind 13 years...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It's an accurate attitude, but I wasn't aware it was limited to be fair. What you've described looks to me more like the present position, and less like something I'd call a 'tax'. I would still be surprised if it didn't involve a shift upwards from the present limits on repayment.

    I don't mind subsidy for STEM courses, but it isn't the same thing. It rewards students for choosing to do something that we need people to do, not for earning less money. Everyone has the choice to take a STEM course, and anyway this is largely just a function of the standard fee cap (presumably all courses would be more expensive in a free market, at some universities at least).
    What do you mean? I was describing precisely the present system.
    The reward for being a successful graduate is the large pay check. Why do you feel like you should get even more of a 'reward' on top of that, even though you'd be in a position to contribute more?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    So you are ok with the current repayment regime (and afaik it's unchanged in the white paper).
    :yep:
    I can tolerate it, yes.

    Our argument about the graduate tax was really tangential to the thread, which might have been why it may have been unclear what I was talking about.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What do you mean? I was describing precisely the present system.
    The reward for being a successful graduate is the large pay check. Why do you feel like you should get even more of a 'reward' on top of that, even though you'd be in a position to contribute more?
    I don't know why that would be, given we've been talking about a graduate tax the whole way through, but, for the reasons you gave, I'm able to put up with the present system.

    You're now arguing that not being required to pay an additional tax, on top of all the extra tax you'll be paying anyway, is a 'reward'?

    My position is perfectly clear. I am not willing to pay an unbounded extra amount, under a graduate tax regime, for the same service that everyone else received. I do not see why my education should be priced retrospectively higher on the grounds that I've actually made productive use of it.

    edit: if your 'reward' comment was aimed at STEM, I've set out my position, but because it's not relevant I'm not willing to get into a long argument about it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What do you mean? I was describing precisely the present system.
    The reward for being a successful graduate is the large pay check. Why do you feel like you should get even more of a 'reward' on top of that, even though you'd be in a position to contribute more?
    From the point of view of society, encouraging more people to do STEM courses is financially beneficial (more STEM people -> larger pool -> (presumably) more talent -> lower wages). Hence, this reward acts encouragement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I don't know why that would be, given we've been talking about a graduate tax the whole way through, but, for the reasons you gave, I'm able to put up with the present system.

    You're now arguing that not being required to pay an additional tax, on top of all the extra tax you'll be paying anyway, is a 'reward'?

    My position is perfectly clear. I am not willing to pay an unbounded extra amount, under a graduate tax regime, for the same service that everyone else received. I do not see why my education should be priced retrospectively higher on the grounds that I've actually made productive use of it.

    edit: if your 'reward' comment was aimed at STEM, I've set out my position, but because it's not relevant I'm not willing to get into a long argument about it.
    I think there's been a misunderstanding. I thought you were arguing against the current system.
    As for a graduate tax, I don't see how that would be any different from any other tax, in that those who earn more nominally pay more nominally. It wouldn't even be tiered. The proposal considered was a 3% flat rate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    I think it is ridiculous, imo. Instead of upping the fees, why can't they bring back the caps on the amount of students universities can accept?
    Because they are neocons = neoliberal conservatives of the worst order.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Obviously I will. The debt is insignificant compared the the experience, knowledge gained, career opportunities expanded and the pay increases acquired from going to a decent Uni as opposed to not going. Not everything is about money. Paying back a few % of my salary, for the cause that got me that salary, doesn't exactly seem unfair to me.
    Like I said, wait until you've graduated. Opinions change. It's incredibly naive to think you're going to walk out of uni and straight into a decent job just because you "worked hard". The real world doesn't work like that, but the Tories thrive by convincing poor people like you that one day you'll be rich, just like them, if you just "work hard". I can empathise with you, because I used to have the same naive views.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.