Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Adrono)
    But the interests keep increasing in the meanwhile, don't they?
    The interest is meaningless. If the 'debt' ends up as £1m after a few years, you're still paying the same %age of your income and it will still get wiped. Their only purpose is for those who are earning a bit more yearly to subsidise those who don't earn enough to even contribute (below the threshold) or earn only a bit above the threshold.

    Think of it like tax brackets.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    University is certainly not a right. It's an institution filled with highly educated individuals sharing their knowledge with you, and learning new knowledge through research. Not everyone will even agree with the information being taught in universities, so forcing them to pay for it through taxes is immoral in my opinion.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I'm shocked at the hate you're getting on this! I've signed it. Education and knowledge should be free for everyone. As a country we're investing in fracking, which I can only see as a short term solution (if you can call it solution) to a long term problem. Yes there is a shortage of money, but education should not be what suffers for it. Look at the amount of money being wasted from tax avoiders! If you have a higher tax rate for the higher wage brackets then this problem can be solved. Good luck!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    Denmark and Sweden have a 25% VAT.

    Germany focuses on professional schools; less students go to university. Their birthrate is also low, so education is much cheaper overall.

    Either way, you can't make universities free like that, you have to make some structural reforms before. Either by reducing the number of students, or increasing taxes.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, well, if a relatively small number of people are willing to click buttons on the internet that will really show the government that they're serious, and surely have an impact on policy. I mean, they might just not be aware that a lot of students don't want to pay for their education.

    I don't have the graph to hand, but I have seen data (I'll look and edit the post if I can find it) which suggests a continued uptick in university attendance by individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds since fees were increased to £9k per year. I'm quite certain that more disadvantaged students in England attend university than in Scotland, where university is paid for by the taxpayer, and that the rate of disadvantages students attending university is increasing more quickly than in Scotland.

    Students get plenty. Loans enable everyone to support themselves at university, with the possible exception of people whose parents earn upper middle incomes but won't support them. Indeed students who, in financial terms, squander their education for some reason are presently rewarded by not having to pay anything for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abolish the fees. Abolish the rubbish degrees then like photography and make it all more selective. Choose one - can't have it free for everyone to play around for three years like many people do..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Person18)
    I'm shocked at the hate you're getting on this! I've signed it. Education and knowledge should be free for everyone. As a country we're investing in fracking, which I can only see as a short term solution (if you can call it solution) to a long term problem. Yes there is a shortage of money, but education should not be what suffers for it. Look at the amount of money being wasted from tax avoiders! If you have a higher tax rate for the higher wage brackets then this problem can be solved. Good luck!


    Thanks for signing
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    The interest is meaningless. If the 'debt' ends up as £1m after a few years, you're still paying the same %age of your income and it will still get wiped. Their only purpose is for those who are earning a bit more yearly to subsidise those who don't earn enough to even contribute (below the threshold) or earn only a bit above the threshold.

    Think of it like tax brackets.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Middle Income Graduates Pay More Than the Rich


    UniversityTuition Fees are a regressive government levy, forcing the less well-off to pay a disproportionate part of their income. Contrary to the propaganda of the current government, the high fees regime is unfair and it is certainly not risk free. It is not a requisite to take out a loan to pay for the tuition fee.Although they don’t publicise it, most universities offer a discount of 2%to 5% for fees paid upfront, £1300 or more.Similarly with the maintenance loans.If family financespermit, students can be cushioned against debt and get their degree at a cut-price rate.For parentswho can afford to send their children to private schools, the high fees regime will appear very affordable. If they don’t wish to pay upfront, they can bank the loan, earn interest on it, andwait to pay it off when their child starts earning abovethe repayment level. The government dropped plans to levy a charge for early repayment. But all but the wealthiest will haveto borrow, and the ones who will be hit hardest financially will be those from middle-earning families, who themselves gain middle-earning jobs after graduation.Interest on the loan isset at above an above inflation rate, in order to pay for the running of the scheme, and this leads to some startling calculations.According to onecalculation,those with a starting salary of £30,000 will repay a whopping £98,000 on a loan of £34,500 while those on who start at £50,000, will pay £64,000; a £34,000 differential dramatically favouring the rich over the middle earner. According to another, the real cost of a three-year degree course, repaid over 30 years including interest, could be as much as £166,150 for a graduate with a starting salary of £26,000. Even those in respected middle-earning rolessuch as teachers,managers,and health professionals may notbe able to pay back their loans with the 30-year repayment period..The level of net repayment as a percentage of income will be significant and affect the affordability criteria for buying a house. The Higher Education Commission foresees thata teacher at 35 would have difficulty securing a mortgage, as a result of the repayment commitments.The so-called ‘graduate premium’ that has been used to justify the high fees regime has been exposed by recent research to be a myth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would love to sign this petition, unfortunately I'm not 18 yet.
    Come on TSR We can get more than 10,000 signatures.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PHD2027)
    I would love to sign this petition, unfortunately I'm not 18 yet.
    Come on TSR We can get more than 10,000 signatures.
    You can still sign it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    You can still sign it
    really?
    well then you can count me in.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    This petition won't change anything, it's a waste of time. The OP's argument has been dismantled by facts from other members. Things aren't free in this world and I agree with the current graduation tax system.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    Middle Income Graduates Pay More Than the Rich


    UniversityTuition Fees are a regressive government levy, forcing the less well-off to pay a disproportionate part of their income. Contrary to the propaganda of the current government, the high fees regime is unfair and it is certainly not risk free. It is not a requisite to take out a loan to pay for the tuition fee.Although they don’t publicise it, most universities offer a discount of 2%to 5% for fees paid upfront, £1300 or more.Similarly with the maintenance loans.If family financespermit, students can be cushioned against debt and get their degree at a cut-price rate.For parentswho can afford to send their children to private schools, the high fees regime will appear very affordable. If they don’t wish to pay upfront, they can bank the loan, earn interest on it, andwait to pay it off when their child starts earning abovethe repayment level. The government dropped plans to levy a charge for early repayment. But all but the wealthiest will haveto borrow, and the ones who will be hit hardest financially will be those from middle-earning families, who themselves gain middle-earning jobs after graduation.Interest on the loan isset at above an above inflation rate, in order to pay for the running of the scheme, and this leads to some startling calculations.According to onecalculation,those with a starting salary of £30,000 will repay a whopping £98,000 on a loan of £34,500 while those on who start at £50,000, will pay £64,000; a £34,000 differential dramatically favouring the rich over the middle earner. According to another, the real cost of a three-year degree course, repaid over 30 years including interest, could be as much as £166,150 for a graduate with a starting salary of £26,000. Even those in respected middle-earning rolessuch as teachers,managers,and health professionals may notbe able to pay back their loans with the 30-year repayment period..The level of net repayment as a percentage of income will be significant and affect the affordability criteria for buying a house. The Higher Education Commission foresees thata teacher at 35 would have difficulty securing a mortgage, as a result of the repayment commitments.The so-called ‘graduate premium’ that has been used to justify the high fees regime has been exposed by recent research to be a myth.
    Congrats you can read an article, want a medal?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Congrats you can read an article, want a medal?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    *Cant make an intelligent observation or response, makes a crap sarcastic insult.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    The interest is meaningless. If the 'debt' ends up as £1m after a few years, you're still paying the same %age of your income and it will still get wiped. Their only purpose is for those who are earning a bit more yearly to subsidise those who don't earn enough to even contribute (below the threshold) or earn only a bit above the threshold.

    Think of it like tax brackets.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's not how I see it. I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the big picture, when you're expecting to repay the debt before it gets wiped away, more interests means more money that go wasted that could have been spent on something instead. And that because it took so long for you to find a job with a salary above the threshold.

    After all, who gets their debt wiped anyways? I mean we're talking about what, getting to the age of 40?

    That's not to say that I disagree with the whole system itself, just that one should take their repayments plans seriously. And not everyone finds a good job immediatly after graduation.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Adrono)
    That's not how I see it. I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the big picture, when you're expecting to repay the debt before it gets wiped away, more interests means more money that go wasted that could have been spent on something instead. And that because it took so long for you to find a job with a salary above the threshold.

    After all, who gets their debt wiped anyways? I mean we're talking about what, getting to the age of 40?

    That's not to say that I disagree with the system itself, just that one should take their repayments plans seriously. And not everyone finds a good job immediatly after graduation.
    It's not wasted money, it gets put into government cash flow to be used for other things.

    age of ~50.

    It's not a repayment plan though, it is quite literally a yearly tax to recuperate what tax payers spent on you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    *Cant make an intelligent observation or response, makes a crap sarcastic insult.

    http://www.savethestudent.org/studen...ent-calculator

    Plug some numbers in there would ya?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)


    Thanks for signing
    Typical liberal - resorting to replying with a mindless, meaningless meme instead of holding an intelligent conversation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    It's not wasted money, it gets put into government cash flow to be used for other things.

    age of ~50.

    It's not a repayment plan though, it is quite literally a yearly tax to recuperate what tax payers spent on you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Tuition Fees Dont Help the Economy

    Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the high fees regime is that it potentially burdens graduates with a lifetime of debt, while saving taxpayers little or nothing. A growing body of evidence has shown that the loan system is unsustainable. Already by 2014 it was apparent that the level of fee repayment won’t meet government estimates of long-term income, and already there is a shortfall in Business Department estimates.In 2010 the level of default, failure to repay,was estimated at 28%.The Institute for Fiscal Studies now predicts that73% will not repay in full, compared to 23% under the previous fee regime.About £90bn of the overall £200bn in student loans will remain unpaid by 2042, according to the latest projections. Accordingly, the policy consultancy London Economics finds that ‘the economic cost of the 2012-13 higher education reforms will exceed the 2010-11 system that it replaced.’A report by the Higher Education Commission in 2014 is damning: ‘The current system fails to meet our test of financial sustainability and further work needs to be undertaken to arrive at a better higher education funding model.’ It is unsatisfactory for students, universities and the state: ‘the worst of both worlds’.

    Princepieman Try reading before you make a dumb comment.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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