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

Clegg: Tuition Fee "Dreamers" Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    The increase in fees will leave thousands in life long debt.

    I have already proven this in many other threads.

    Interest on a bigger total debt amount means more interest debt repayable every year.

    4% of £25,000 = £1,000 + repayments of loan on top of this interest compound.

    4% of £50,000 - £2,000 + repayments of loan on top of this interest compound.

    Without taking interest growth into account - lets say at 4% over 10 years.



    Current system - £25,000 debt

    10 years later will be a debt of £37,271 - an increase of £12,271


    New proposed system - £50,000 debt

    10 years later will be a debt of £74,542 - an increase of £24,542

    ----

    Not only is the actual amount in the first place more, the interest compounding annually will leave graduates crippled for life financially under the new system.

    Yes many will not go ten years without repayments but its easy to see how interest compounds much quicker on the larger initial sum than it does on the smaller initial sum.

    Also under the new system more loans will not get paid back so that will put a huge burden on the taxpayer meaning either a tax increase to cover it or money taken from elsewhere. More than likely it will be a cut in the education budget in the future which will in turn drive university academic standards down and leave the value of a degree nationally and internationally less attractive and worthwhile.
    But what I'd say is that the overall figure of student debt doesn't really matter, as theres no obligation to pay it back. You can owe £1,000,000 but if you earn £20k for your life you won't repay anything, just like if you owe £5,000. And you will always pay less per month under these proposals. Sure if you owe more you'll be paying back longer, but if the repayments are small and manageable, that doesn't matter either.

    The cost to the taxpayer over the short term is the flaw in these proposals, I agree. But in the longer term, I think enough will be repaid to allow a saving, given that large amounts are given out in funding at present anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Don't miss quote me you tool.
    Had to been done Lol.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    How do you get from talking about trident to this? The point of modern warfare is defence against threats THATS WHY WE HAVE TRIDENT NUCLEAR DETERRENT GOOGLE IT.

    Trident is part of guaranteeing homeland security. The government apparently already does a good job because guess what there has been 1 terrorist attack in the last 10 years and countless others stopped. Many of which you will not know about as its kept out the press
    So you are spoon-fed government arguments for war and defense. Sounds a bit dogmatic tbf. I ask you, how many countries have been nuked? and how many nukes are there in the world by different countries? Bunch of hypocrites who complain about nuclear weapons when they are fine with their own. Do you think Iran think: we need a nuke to prevent getting nuked ourselves by countries such as the US?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think Clegg is a disgrace. I really supported him during the election and was sure he could bring this "change" his party promised. Now that he's got a sniff of power though, he abandons all the promises he made just so he can jump on the Tory bandwagon.
    I don't see him surviving for long...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flob)
    But what I'd say is that the overall figure of student debt doesn't really matter, as theres no obligation to pay it back. You can owe £1,000,000 but if you earn £20k for your life you won't repay anything, just like if you owe £5,000. And you will always pay less per month under these proposals. Sure if you owe more you'll be paying back longer, but if the repayments are small and manageable, that doesn't matter either.

    The cost to the taxpayer over the short term is the flaw in these proposals, I agree. But in the longer term, I think enough will be repaid to allow a saving, given that large amounts are given out in funding at present anyway.
    Yes but imagine having a debt of £25,000 for 10 years which increases to the £37,000 odd figure I just stated.

    Then someone who has a debt of £50,000 for 10 years which increases to the £74,000 figure.

    If they land that dream job after 10 years due to changes in the economy or certain sectors the first person will have to pay back £37,000 whereas the second person has to pay back £74,000 - twice as much interest even though its over the same length of time to get that graduate job.

    Imagine after 10 years they cannot get a job so move to America to seek opportunities to see that their debt has increased massively. Its a bit sickening to be honest.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Had to been done Lol.



    So you are spoon-fed government arguments for war and defense. Sounds a bit dogmatic tbf. I ask you, how many countries have been nuked? and how many nukes are there in the world by different countries? Bunch of hypocrites who complain about nuclear weapons when they are fine with their own. Do you think Iran think: we need a nuke to prevent getting nuked ourselves by countries such as the US?
    The US won't Nuke Iran unless they have nuclear weapons. End off go google if you want they have reasons not to. And don't bother replying to me any more I cannot be bothered with your moronic arguments.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The US won't Nuke Iran unless they have nuclear weapons. End off go google if you want they have reasons not to. And don't bother replying to me any more I cannot be bothered with your moronic arguments.
    Just because you can't handle a rational argument and have to resort to google to everything is no way to prove yourself correct. When we have an allie as great as the US, it seems perfectly reasonable to avoid some nuclear deterrent. I think it highly unlikely that the UK is a prime target for middle-eastern countries with nukes. You can state that we have new threats all the time to eradicate but something such as terrorism is like a weed that has spread great distances and will be very hard to suppress. The main reason as I mentioned before as to why countries go into war is for profit and like the US did in Iraq; Oil or natural commodities which prove valuable to the state. It can be masked under fighting terrorism but it truly isn't.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)

    x

    Off topic, but did you agree with fees being introduced in the first place?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    How do you get from talking about trident to this? The point of modern warfare is defence against threats THATS WHY WE HAVE TRIDENT NUCLEAR DETERRENT GOOGLE IT.

    Trident is part of guaranteeing homeland security. The government apparently already does a good job because guess what there has been 1 terrorist attack in the last 10 years and countless others stopped. Many of which you will not know about as its kept out the press
    Trident is also a massive burden on the taxpayer, never stopped 7/7 or the glasgow bombing and won't stop attacks similar to 9/11 as the attack comes from an outside source within 'undercover' means.

    Seriously, if terrorists wanted to mass attack this country they would do it whether Trident was there or not. The majority of terrorist attacks come from within and due to the UK's lax immigration laws/regulations then people can come to the UK and seek asylum and then plot an attack within the country itself - just as the 7/7 bombers did.

    Also a lot of potential terrorists are British born fanatics so they are already within the UK.

    I still can't believe how many believe about all this nuclear war nonsense as its bordering on the cold war propaganda hysteria. Its really pathetic.

    Ask yourself the following question.

    Did we find WMD's in Iraq?

    What were the motives for invading Iraq?

    I'll give you the answers

    No and Political reasons over natural resources.

    -------

    Even top ranked generals have said Trident is a massive waste of money. If a country or a terrorist really wanted to attack us they could.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ja...e-say-generals

    All this hype by the government about nuclear warfare is clearly done for pure political reasons - the same as global warming which is a complete farce in order to tax us more - the exact reasons other countries in Asia have rejected Global Warming claims.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Off topic, but did you agree with fees being introduced in the first place?
    Certainly not, the government can sustain the same or a higher level of education by shifting cuts in other sector of govt funding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    Yes but imagine having a debt of £25,000 for 10 years which increases to the £37,000 odd figure I just stated.

    Then someone who has a debt of £50,000 for 10 years which increases to the £74,000 figure.

    If they land that dream job after 10 years due to changes in the economy or certain sectors the first person will have to pay back £37,000 whereas the second person has to pay back £74,000 - twice as much interest even though its over the same length of time to get that graduate job.

    Imagine after 10 years they cannot get a job so move to America to seek opportunities to see that their debt has increased massively. Its a bit sickening to be honest.
    The interest only kicks in once you're earning above the threshold, so your last example simply wouldn't happen.

    And as graduate jobs, they are only accessible because of the degree the students have done. In straitened times, there is at least an argument for them paying back more of the cost of their degree - plus some interest - the average earnings of which is ~£100,000.

    Also, once again, monthly repayments are what matter - not the figure of the debt. Most people won't pay back their loans, so the extent of any residual debt doesn't matter to them, whether its £50k or £5k. And the monthly repayments won't cripple anyone, and will always be less than the current system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flob)
    The interest only kicks in once you're earning above the threshold, so your last example simply wouldn't happen.

    No interest on loans starts from the day you take that loan out at the rate of inflation at that particular time. Whoever told you that is sadly mistaken.



    And as graduate jobs, they are only accessible because of the degree the students have done. In straitened times, there is at least an argument for them paying back more of the cost of their degree - plus some interest - the average earnings of which is ~£100,000.

    Also, once again, monthly repayments are what matter - not the figure of the debt. Most people won't pay back their loans, so the extent of any residual debt doesn't matter to them, whether its £50k or £5k. And the monthly repayments won't cripple anyone, and will always be less than the current system.
    There you go. What you just stated will leave a burden on the taxpayer as of which graduates will more than likely be the taxpayers at that time so therefore they will have to pay increased taxes to subsidise the difference or the education budget will get cut to subsidise the difference meaning academic standards will decrease.

    Repayments for those with top jobs after graduation will be more.
    The only ones who pay less will be those slightly over the threshold. After promotions then most graduates will earn more than that sum and therefore will pay increased amounts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Clegg is an idiot. He was against tuition fee rises but now he is in power he's happy to go along with anything.
    I understand that the amounts paid back every year aren't a lot and are dependent on income, but they are still there and will affect students future plans and budgets.
    • Offline

      1
      It's about the value you personally place on your degree and the quality of the teaching provided. Mr. Lammy made reference to a constituent of his who was concerned that her degree from SOAS in Development would not be worthwhile as the graduate opportunities leading from it were poor. If you know this, why apply then?

      I appreciate that there should be an element of enjoyment in studying and if development is something she enjoys, she should have the opportunity to pursue it. But why should others be penalised for considering the graduate employment market and studying a vocation which has higher prospects? Labour's graduate tax discriminates against those (as usual) who work hard and instead of allowing them to reap their rewards, to instead, be forced to prop-up those that didn't do so well, due to their own choosing.

      Ms. Hodgson is going on about EMA at the moment. But doesn't she realise that the 'pupil premium' is a better system and actually fixes the failures in the [education] system from the roots, and not the branches like Labour did?
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      What a complete load of bull. We have a massive deficit that needs to be cut, so cuts have to be made. What exactly are you proposing here? What would your system be a mass amount of tax rises followed by no cuts?

      Set the country back 100 years? The hell are you even talking about. You don't even have any genuine criticism just pure ideological bull.
      You probably don't even know what a deficit is
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jb9191)
      There you go. What you just stated will leave a burden on the taxpayer as of which graduates will more than likely be the taxpayers at that time so therefore they will have to pay increased taxes to subsidise the difference or the education budget will get cut to subsidise the difference meaning academic standards will decrease.

      Repayments for those with top jobs after graduation will be more.
      The only ones who pay less will be those slightly over the threshold. After promotions then most graduates will earn more than that sum and therefore will pay increased amounts.
      No, its you thats mistaken http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5342. Tapered interest rates mean 0% interest if you earn £21,000.

      It is expected that 10% will pay more than they borrowed, and the bottom 25% will pay back less. The Government expects an ultimate return of 70% of money. So if £9000 loans are paid to 500,000 students each year, that will leave a shortfall of ~£1.35 bn. When you couple that with cuts to HE funding of 2.9bn - savings will be made of around £1.55bn each year. That also allows for some wiggle room on the Government estimates, which do seem over-optimistic.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Is he trying to piss people off now?
      • Offline

        1
        (Original post by Butted)
        Is he trying to piss people off now?

        I think he is. He didn't even stay for the whole debate.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by WhereIsMyMind)
        I think he is. He didn't even stay for the whole debate.
        It really wouldn't surprise me if he was some kind of Tory mole brought in in an elaborate scheme to destroy the Lib Dems
        • Offline

          1
          (Original post by Butted)
          It really wouldn't surprise me if he was some kind of Tory mole brought in in an elaborate scheme to destroy the Lib Dems
          Could be.. But it's not as if these Lib Dem seats will become Tory votes when the party is destroyed. Lib Dem seats will become Labour ones.

          Tory fail.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by WhereIsMyMind)
          Could be.. But it's not as if these Lib Dem seats will become Tory votes when the party is destroyed. Lib Dem seats will become Labour ones.

          Tory fail.
         
         
         
        Reply
        Submit reply
        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.

        Updated: December 9, 2010
      • 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
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
        Useful resources

        Groups associated with this forum:

        View associated groups
      • 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.