You are Here: Home

# Nick Cleggs Maths = FAIL ! Watch

1. (Original post by Phil2202)
Just skimmed the article. He actually said that average repayments of a graduate earning £21,000, then promoted to a £27,000 job after 20 years, would be £7 per month. It's still wrong, but so are you.

(£21,000 - £21,000) x 9% x 20 years = £0

(£27,000 - £21,000) x 9% x 10 years = £5,400

(0 + £5,400) / 30 years = £5,400 / 30 years = £180 / year

£180 / 12 months = £15 / month

That's what I get as the average. It's still only £450 per year for once the graduate earns £27k, though, which is pretty reasonable; and still lower than current repayments.
That's wrong.

On £27,000 per year you'd be £6000 over the threshold.

9% of £6000 is £540 each year.

Over 30 years of £540 payments that covers £16,200.

Well below the amount of debt obtained leaving the country in deficit.
Basically, you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 per year to pay back £32,400 over 30 years. as you'd be £12000 over the threshold.

9% of 12000 = £1080 per year x 30 = £32,400.

Still below the debt I estimated earlier.

The majority of students will not pay the entire loan back meaning the country will be deep in the **** again. Which we'll then have to pay tax as graduates to sort out.
2. (Original post by Cheofik)
Don't talk about Nick's inadequate maths when your own figures are inaccurate. You repay 9% of whatever is earned over £21k, NOT the gross salary. Therefore someone on £22k would repay 9% of £1,000.
I know. I've rectified this in my last post.
3. (Original post by Phil2202)
Where do you think the money comes from at the moment? It comes from the taxpayer.

The raised fees with simply mean that the costs will be largely covered by the high earning graduates, who will pay back the full cost if their loan.
Obviously it comes from the taxpayer however the new system will mean the taxpayer pays more as the majority of graduates will not repay the total cost of their loan.
4. (Original post by jb9191)
[B]Again you're wrong. My estimates are based on the £9000 tuition fees proposed. Some universities like Oxford and Cambridge will be able to charge £12000 which will only increase the debt total.

The figures I used were based on a middle class student who could take out the maximum maintenance loan. Regardless of this, even with lower class students the debt is only going to be £5000 odd less. They still are getting hit hard by these proposals.

If I'm at Cambridge doing Computer Science for £12,000 per year.

That's £36,000 for a 3 year course. Forget sandwich courses, we'll keep it simple.

Now maintenance loan of lets say £3,500 for those 3 years = £10,500.
That may or may not cover accommodation.

Then you have an overdraft of £2000. That's roughly £50,000 worth of debt for a 3 year course. Even more for middle class students as the maintenance loan is higher as they don't get the grant or only a partial grant.

Its obvious that there will be a lot more students with over £40,000 worth of debt.

Now, to pay that back in 30 years you would be paying quite a lot back each month. A lot more than under the current system I can assure you.
My problem with your original post was that you factor in overdrafts which are personal debts not related to student finance, and you used £5000 for maintenance loan which for the vast majority is actually just over £3000.
so 3x (lets say 3300) 3300= 9900
3x 9000= 27000
total owed to governemnt = £36000 ,significantly less that your calculated estimate.
Now assuming the vast majority of graduates will break the 21000 barrier during their 30 years to pay it back they'll pay back far more than the measly 2000 something figure you produced earlier.
You seem to be always fudging the numbers to worst case scenarios and adding debts that aren't owed to the goverment.
You brought the scenario up a cambridge graduate who could be charged up to £12000 a year, but this person when they graduate will be in very high demand and over the 30 years probably pay back all, or at the very least more than they would have had to pay back if they had £3000 a year fees, so the government will still benefit from this.
I picked my figures on what the majority of students would have to pay, you seem to pick extreme cases and (add a little bit of number fudging) then say the proposals are rubbish.
5. (Original post by jb9191)
That's wrong.

On £27,000 per year you'd be £6000 over the threshold.

9% of £6000 is £540 each year.

Over 30 years of £540 payments that covers £16,200.

Well below the amount of debt obtained leaving the country in deficit.
Basically, you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 per year to pay back £32,400 over 30 years. as you'd be £12000 over the threshold.

9% of 12000 = £1080 per year x 30 = £32,400.

Still below the debt I estimated earlier.

The majority of students will not pay the entire loan back meaning the country will be deep in the **** again. Which we'll then have to pay tax as graduates to sort out.
Shut up and think about what you're saying.

Of course most students wont pay back their full loan (60% in fact), but most will pay more than they currently do. As university is subsidised by the taxpayer currently, any addition payments reduce subsidy by the taxpayer.

Yes, the very lowest earners will pay less than they do currently; however, a graduate earning £100,000 will pay back many times the current loan. Please tell me you can understand this.

Don't think about the future unpaid debt and compare it to current costs... They are not true costs, as university is mostly paid for by the taxpayer right now.
6. (Original post by mathmagician)
My problem with your original post was that you factor in overdrafts which are personal debts not related to student finance, and you used £5000 for maintenance loan which for the vast majority is actually just over £3000.
so 3x (lets say 3300) 3300= 9900
3x 9000= 27000
total owed to governemnt = £36000 ,significantly less that your calculated estimate.
Now assuming the vast majority of graduates will break the 21000 barrier during their 30 years to pay it back they'll pay back far more than the measly 2000 something figure you produced earlier.
You seem to be always fudging the numbers to worst case scenarios and adding debts that aren't owed to the goverment.
You brought the scenario up a cambridge graduate who could be charged up to £12000 a year, but this person when they graduate will be in very high demand and over the 30 years probably pay back all, or at the very least more than they would have had to pay back if they had £3000 a year fees, so the government will still benefit from this.
I picked my figures on what the majority of students would have to pay, you seem to pick extreme cases and (add a little bit of number fudging) then say the proposals are rubbish.

That's wrong.

On £27,000 per year you'd be £6000 over the threshold.

9% of £6000 is £540 each year.

Over 30 years of £540 payments that covers £16,200.

Well below the amount of debt obtained leaving the country in deficit.
Basically, you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 per year to pay back £32,400 over 30 years. as you'd be £12000 over the threshold.

9% of 12000 = £1080 per year x 30 = £32,400.

Still below the debt I estimated earlier.

The majority of students will not pay the entire loan back meaning the country will be deep in the **** again. Which we'll then have to pay tax as graduates to sort out.

Basically, to pay back £32,400 of that £36000 debt you just forecast you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 for 30 years. I doubt most will be in work for 30 years meaning that they will have to pay back more each year and therefore will need a bigger salary - more than likely between £40-50k.

I can guarantee most will not pay back the total amount of their loans.
7. (Original post by jb9191)
Obviously it comes from the taxpayer however the new system will mean the taxpayer pays more as the majority of graduates will not repay the total cost of their loan.
Let me get something straight. The actual cost of university has not gone up; all that is going to happen is that the university payments have been transferred to the students, rather than the taxpayer.

Regardless of whether the student repays 10% of their debt, or 80% of their debt, less money has been taken from the tax payer.

Yes, some students will not repay as much as they do currently (in total), but many more will repay more: leading to reduced costs to the taxpayer.
8. (Original post by Phil2202)
Shut up and think about what you're saying.

Nice resorting to insults. Grow up!

Of course most students wont pay back their full loan (60% in fact), but most will pay more than they currently do. As university is subsidised by the taxpayer currently, any addition payments reduce subsidy by the taxpayer.

No because the cut to the budget is less than the overall amount of increase put on the tuition fees. The fact is, under the new system, the taxpayer pays more so therefore universities get more funding. It says so on the BBC website.

Yes, the very lowest earners will pay less than they do currently; however, a graduate earning £100,000 will pay back many times the current loan. Please tell me you can understand this.

A graduate earning £100,000 will pay back the loan and then pay tax into the system. How many graduates do you think get jobs on £100,000? Please wake up.

Don't think about the future unpaid debt and compare it to current costs... They are not true costs, as university is mostly paid for by the taxpayer right now.

As of current - the average course costs roughly £7000 per year.

£3290 tuition fee loan - tax payer pays up front
£3710 roughly - government funding from taxpayer

Some extra funding from sponsors etc

New system

£6000 tuition fee loan - tax payer pays up front
£2000 roughly government funding from taxpayer

Some extra funding from sponsors etc

Therefore, the current system the taxpayer pays the £7000 whereas depending on the increase implemented by the university, the taxpayer will fork out more.

In the new system with £6000 per year tuition fees it will be roughly £8000 cost to the taxpayer. If there was £12000 tuition fees, it would be a substantial amount extra - this is how top uni's like Cambridge & Oxford will boost funding.

The amount cut from government funding is not as much as the percentage increase on tuition fees. That's the issue. This is how the top half of universities who increase tuition fees will increase funding. Cambridge is expected to rake in extra funding through this method.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638

I suggest you read the bit where it says "Will Universities Get More Money?" - the last sentence.

However, some universities may be able to charge fees high enough to enable them to increase their funding despite the budget cuts.

Funding has been cut by 40%. The increase on tuition fees from roughly £3000 to £6000 is a 100% increase, to £9000 is a 200% increase and so on.

You fail to see that 60% of funding is still available whilst the tuition fee increase will be more than the 40% cut thus meaning the taxpayer will pay the offset percentage difference.
9. This discussion is so immensely filled with misconceptions and poor maths, it's unbelievable.

I can't believe that, of all things, people are complaining that the new system will cost the government more.
10. (Original post by CyclopsRock)
This discussion is so immensely filled with misconceptions and poor maths, it's unbelievable.

I can't believe that, of all things, people are complaining that the new system will cost the government more.
Its costing the taxpayer more.
11. 1) You assume the graduate salary will not rise at all over 30 years.
2) You think a Cambridge CS graduate will be on 27k an year for 30 years.
3) You keep factoring in personal loans and overdrafts. These don't count.
4) You seem to be under the notion that graduates do pay more towards their education than they will under this system. Not true. The taxpayer already funds tuition fees, this just attempts to reduce that burden and charging high earners more, not make average students pay ALL of it themselves.
12. (Original post by ish90an)
1) You assume the graduate salary will not rise at all over 30 years.
2) You think a Cambridge CS graduate will be on 27k an year for 30 years.
3) You keep factoring in personal loans and overdrafts. These don't count.
4) You seem to be under the notion that graduates do pay more towards their education than they will under this system. Not true. The taxpayer already funds tuition fees, this just attempts to reduce that burden and charging high earners more, not make average students pay ALL of it themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638

A university course costs roughly £7000.

At current

£3290 tuition loans - paid up front by taxpayer
£3710 government funding - paid by taxpayer

The rest of the universities funding is from sponsors and a other budgets.

New System

Example 1

£6000 tuition loans - paid up front by taxpayer

Only 40% of government funding is being cut - 60% is still available

60% of £3710 is £2226

That totals = £8226 < The uni has £1226 more funding.

The rest of the universities funding is from sponsors and a other budgets.

Example 2

Cambridge University

£12000 tuition loans - paid up front by taxpayer

Government funding probably be minimal - less than £1000 - if that.

Total = £12000 - 13,000 for a course that costs roughly £7000

Therefore Cambridge boost funding by roughly £5000.
13. (Original post by jb9191)

That's wrong.

On £27,000 per year you'd be £6000 over the threshold.

9% of £6000 is £540 each year.

Over 30 years of £540 payments that covers £16,200.

Well below the amount of debt obtained leaving the country in deficit.
Basically, you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 per year to pay back £32,400 over 30 years. as you'd be £12000 over the threshold.

9% of 12000 = £1080 per year x 30 = £32,400.

Still below the debt I estimated earlier.

The majority of students will not pay the entire loan back meaning the country will be deep in the **** again. Which we'll then have to pay tax as graduates to sort out.

Basically, to pay back £32,400 of that £36000 debt you just forecast you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 for 30 years. I doubt most will be in work for 30 years meaning that they will have to pay back more each year and therefore will need a bigger salary - more than likely between £40-50k.

I can guarantee most will not pay back the total amount of their loans.
They might not, but that's not what i was arguing. I was taking issue with your poor choice of numbers to back up your claim.
Under the new system the government also won't lose money, graduates won't pay back less than they would have under the old system so any extra money reclaimed as a result is useful. There will be a lot of graduates who after 20-30 years of graduating are earning well over 30k, so i think this system will get more money out of graduates and so the government needs to subside less.
You used £27000 is this the average graduate wage?
Also the increased fees might dissaude less able students taking the more pointless degrees which could see the average graduate wage rise.
14. (Original post by mathmagician)
They might not, but that's not what i was arguing. I was taking issue with your poor choice of numbers to back up your claim.
Under the new system the government also won't lose money, graduates won't pay back less than they would have under the old system so any extra money reclaimed as a result is useful. There will be a lot of graduates who after 20-30 years of graduating are earning well over 30k, so i think this system will get more money out of graduates and so the government needs to subside less.
You used £27000 is this the average graduate wage?
Also the increased fees might dissaude less able students taking the more pointless degrees which could see the average graduate wage rise.
I based £27000 on the salary Phil used earlier on to prove his maths was wrong.

I agree fully with the point in the bold there.

The only graduates who will pay back the total amount of their loan are those on salaries over roughly £35,000-40,000, also depending on amount of debt in the first place.
15. (Original post by angelmxxx)
No no no!

It's 9% of your income OVER £21000!

Someone on £21500 thus pays back 9% of £500!
This is what I was about to say, but you said it first, so quoting is quicker

OP, you can **** Nick Clegg off as much as you like, but at least get your facts CORRECT before you do so.
16. (Original post by jb9191)
The fact is someone who is on £21,000 per year would pay back £157.50 per month (9% of their income). This is £150 more per month than the figures hes putting forward.
Where do you get this rubbish from?

Someone earning 21k pays nothing under the new proposals and £45/month under the current system.
17. (Original post by jb9191)
I based £27000 on the salary Phil used earlier on to prove his maths was wrong.

I agree fully with the point in the bold there.

The only graduates who will pay back the total amount of their loan are those on salaries over roughly £35,000-40,000, also depending on amount of debt in the first place.
Averaged over their career yes.
Where do you get this rubbish from?

Someone earning 21k pays nothing under the new proposals and £45/month under the current system.
Learn to read the whole thread before jumping down peoples throats. I rectified my error.

On £27,000 per year you'd be £6000 over the threshold.

9% of £6000 is £540 each year.

Over 30 years of £540 payments that covers £16,200.

Well below the amount of debt obtained leaving the country in deficit.
Basically, you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 per year to pay back £32,400 over 30 years. as you'd be £12000 over the threshold.

9% of 12000 = £1080 per year x 30 = £32,400.

Still below the debt I estimated earlier.

The majority of students will not pay the entire loan back meaning the country will be deep in the **** again. Which we'll then have to pay tax as graduates to sort out.

Basically, to pay back £32,400 of that £36000 debt you just forecast you'd have to be on a salary of £33,000 for 30 years. I doubt most will be in work for 30 years meaning that they will have to pay back more each year and therefore will need a bigger salary - more than likely between £40-50k.

I can guarantee most will not pay back the total amount of their loans.

The only ones who will pay back all their loans are those who go on to get salaries of over £40,000.

Anything below that won't as no one will work 30 years flat on a salary of £33,000.
19. (Original post by jb9191)
The majority of students will not pay the entire loan back meaning the country will be deep in the **** again. Which we'll then have to pay tax as graduates to sort out.
Have you actually read the Browne report?

Its not like you're the only person to work this out...

Why would we have to pay more in tax? People can't default on the loan, as fee payments increase over timethe Uk will gave a higher revenue stream on the same out goings - why would taxes raise rather than fall?
20. (Original post by jb9191)
I based £27000 on the salary Phil used earlier on to prove his maths was wrong.

I agree fully with the point in the bold there.

The only graduates who will pay back the total amount of their loan are those on salaries over roughly £35,000-40,000, also depending on amount of debt in the first place.
I'm just going to chime in and say what some other people have already said.

This is a progressive system. That means that while, yes, many people will not pay back the full cost of their loan, and in fact, the bottom 25% of earners will pay less than they would under the current system, the top earners will pay far more than their fair share, due to rates of interest increasing with income. This means that the top earners are subsidising the lower earners not paying off their loans in full.

I can't see where you're coming from using "it's a burden on the taxpayer" as an argument. It costs the government less this way - that's why they're doing it.

Secondly, I'll just throw in that the cap on tuition fees is £9,000. No university can charge more than this, not even Oxford or Cambridge.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 1, 2010
Today on TSR

### Degrees to get rich!

... and the ones that won't

### Women equal with Men?

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## 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.

• Useful resources

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## 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

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