so many clearing places left?

But it isn't really an increase, because many people do not pay it back. Statements like that just show you do not understand the system. Many people can be better off under the new system as it's all debt on paper that's written off if you don't pay it back within a set time (and many people can't pay it back within that time).

proving my point, the majority of the population cannot read and do basic mathematics.

here are facts, I'm not finding the argument I used last time It's far too long, complex and isn't needed.
A.We pay 9% over 21,000
B.they pay 9% over 15,000
let's take although an unrealistic scenario someone earning an average of let's say of £42,500 for the 30 years before the debt is cancelled.
A. pays 9% of 21500, £1935
B. pays 9% of 27500, £2475
Person B on the old scheme is paying back more per month and will thus potentially not be able to live in higher off areas where jobs are more readily available, they also will not be able to live as well as person A, giving person A more motivation in life to get on as they are healthier and less worried than person B. However person B will have payed off the loan after 4/5 years, while A won't have, I worked out ultimately that A pays back double what B does, I've messed this example up slightly. Person A however also gets more money in terms of maintenance when living through university, less stress of rent, food and other bills meaning they should perform better, thus leading to a higher grade overall and meaning better job offers... far too simplified hence the mess up, but either way,new system works out better...

I don't think your assumptions will hold up in reality and as you say you messed up so your point is not really clear.

Also it seems to depend on actually finding a job over 21k, which may or may not be true especially in this environment.

Also, debts of 35-40k whatever the system is no joke.

if you are willing to be unemployed within that time then perhaps but if you suggesting that people deliberately wait for it to expire then you got another thing coming cause the gov. may be slow but they are not stupid and will close that hole pretty fast. It could also amount to something unlawful, in which case you could be sued for the debt.

How can anyone be better off under this new system ? Sounds pretty nonsensical to me

they do, I just need to find the last time I wrote out this example. in fact call up student finance, they agreed with me.

if the person was earning 18,000 in both scenarios the person who went in sept 2012 would be better off... the environment is more likely to get better in a few years after 2012 applicants have finished. The fee will also make people think about which degree they want to do and not do one for the sake of it, or for the sake of having fun for 3 years.

it isn't even a debt, you cannot be charged if you haven't got the money, it's simply more like a tax, far more sensible and works far better

No, it just means you haven't bothered understanding the system properly. It's written off if you don't repay it within a set time, and anyone on a lowish income won't earn enough to pay it back in time. And yes, some people will be better off under the new system - I didn't say everyone will be, but some will.

Go and do some research, coz if you're intending to go to uni/already there you need to know what you're getting into. You currently have no idea.

No, it just means you haven't bothered understanding the system properly. It's written off if you don't repay it within a set time, and anyone on a lowish income won't earn enough to pay it back in time. And yes, some people will be better off under the new system - I didn't say everyone will be, but some will.

Go and do some research, coz if you're intending to go to uni/already there you need to know what you're getting into. You currently have no idea.

Zenomorph is making a valid point. You are placing your trust in government to maintain the same policy over many years.

Look at this example.

Capital Gains Tax used to be charged at 40% for higher rate income tax payers but with lots of exemptions, reliefs and loopholes. 5 or 6 years ago the government said that it would reduce the tax rate to 18% but close down most of the reliefs etc. The effect would be that the tax would raise the same amount of revenue. No-one objected to losing the reliefs because the headline tax rate was reduced so much.

In 2010, the government said that the 18% tax rate was lower than it had ever been; it was far too low and they put it up to 28%.

The comparison with student loans is this. The increased debt is being sold on the basis that the repayments are lower than under the old scheme, but once the increased debt is accepted, you can't trust the government not to say that the rate of repayment is too low, because it is less than what old scheme borrowers are repaying.

Student loans have changed a lot over the years, but the terms the loan was taken out under stay the same. Again, you need to do lots of research because you have no idea what you're getting yourself into. There are currently many different styles of repayment in place, because of how many different kind of loans they have been - I'm repaying my loan at a completely different rate to someone who took theirs out 20 years ago. But they can't just change the scheme how you think they can, and so far they haven't.

22 (2) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision—

(g)prescribing requirements or other provisions, whether as to repayment or otherwise, which are for the time being to apply in relation to loans under this section (including requirements or other provisions taking effect during the currency of such loans so as to add to, or otherwise modify, those for the time being applying in relation to the loans);