Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So my friend and I were talking about applying for student finance etc. when she asked me this question: Why is it that people complain about a rise in tuition fees when a student loan doesn't even have to be paid back until graduates are earning a certain amount per year?
    And I had literally no idea how to answer her...
    So I'm hoping someone on here could provide some insight!
    Thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The point is that students DO have to pay them back! Past students are paying back about £9-10k for their degree, the current and future generations will be paying up to £27k. This student loan is "like" a tax on our salary, which is now taking 3 times longer before it disappears.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Because in the end, they still have to pay it back. Unless you work a low pay job all your life.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serculis)
    Because in the end, they still have to pay it back. Unless you work a low pay job all your life.
    In which case you *sort of* pay it back out of general taxation anyway...


    Personally I'm kind of against normalising debt and student loans go along way to making people feel like being in debt is normal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Going to university ensures(mostly) that you get a good job at the end of your degree, so eventually you will have to pay it back.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Would you rather be in 9k debt or 27k debt? There's your answer.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    All of these responses are ridiculous and dramatic. Under the new system you have to earn more money before you start paying back (£21,000 as opposed to just over £17,000). You're really never going to notice how much is coming out for your student loan, if you earn £30k a year you'll be paying back just over £60 a month which is nothing. It simply moves us into line with the rest of the developed world in terms of how much a university education costs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    All of these responses are ridiculous and dramatic. Under the new system you have to earn more money before you start paying back (£21,000 as opposed to just over £17,000). You're really never going to notice how much is coming out for your student loan, if you earn £30k a year you'll be paying back just over £60 a month which is nothing. It simply moves us into line with the rest of the developed world in terms of how much a university education costs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you earn £30k a year and pay back £60 per month in student loans, plus rent, bills, food, etc etc etc it all adds up and I'm sure a lot of people would want that £60 per month to eventually stop at some point during their lives, which if you remain on £30k for your life then it most likely won't.

    I agree people are super over-dramatic when it comes to the fees but I can understand, after seeing first hand how much everything builds up and sometimes even £30 per month is just £30 too much you know?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah_king)
    So my friend and I were talking about applying for student finance etc. when she asked me this question: Why is it that people complain about a rise in tuition fees when a student loan doesn't even have to be paid back until graduates are earning a certain amount per year?
    And I had literally no idea how to answer her...
    So I'm hoping someone on here could provide some insight!
    Thanks

    Student loans are a vicious cycle.
    A student loan does not have to be paid back until graduates are earning a certain income per annum, as you mentioned. What this means is that a student loan is not paid by the student per se, but by the future taxpayer.
    When you become a taxpayer (in the case of students- with a certain income) you will have to pay back a certain ammount of taxes back to your government.
    I can assure you that if you will have to pay more for your student loans, as a taxpayer you will probably be paying less for other services.
    At the same time, if you will be charged less for a student loan, that doesn't mean they won't find a way to get the taxmoney they "reduced from you" incorporated into other taxes.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stemmery)
    If you earn £30k a year and pay back £60 per month in student loans, plus rent, bills, food, etc etc etc it all adds up and I'm sure a lot of people would want that £60 per month to eventually stop at some point during their lives, which if you remain on £30k for your life then it most likely won't.

    I agree people are super over-dramatic when it comes to the fees but I can understand, after seeing first hand how much everything builds up and sometimes even £30 per month is just £30 too much you know?
    If you earn 30k a year you take home about £24k so each month about £2k, £60 is such a tiny portion of that that it should never be an issue for you. I'm sure a lot of people would want it to stop, I'd like to never have to pay tax but unfortunately that's the way it goes; if you're so against paying that money then don't go to university


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    If you earn 30k a year you take home about £24k so each month about £2k, £60 is such a tiny portion of that that it should never be an issue for you. I'm sure a lot of people would want it to stop, I'd like to never have to pay tax but unfortunately that's the way it goes; if you're so against paying that money then don't go to university
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not against paying any money. I earn a lot more than £21k already. I'm just saying I know how hard it is for some people who have families etc and have things to pay for that these massive tuition fees would just be a burden on them. If you ended up as a single parent with rent to pay, food, childcare etc etc and £60 a month on top of all that, I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy. Instead of being judgmental, think about the bigger picture, there are people that could end up in lots of different situations and these extreme tuition fees don't help at all.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by German123)
    Going to university ensures(mostly) that you get a good job at the end of your degree, so eventually you will have to pay it back.
    A back of an envelope calculation suggests that if you do a four year course taking the full loan in every year then you need to earn about £50,000 within one year of graduating just to stop the interest accumulating. Effectively unless you're earning a lot more than this very sooner after graduating you will never pay it off in full. Only a very small minority of graduates will get jobs that well paid so quickly (largely lawyers and doctors, I expect) so my advice is to forget about it and consider that you're more than likely to be getting a very cheap education.

    The rhetoric about not being able to afford university because of the increased fees is largely a load of rubbish because every EU student gets government loans which cover the costs which most people will never actually pay back.

    In a way I am slightly envious of the people on the new fees because although they have a greater amount of debt they will most likely end up paying less back over their lifetimes. I graduated with about £21,000 in debt but I have to start repaying 9% of what I earn over £15,000 so it's pretty likely I will at some point pay that off (plus the interest that is currently accumulating).


    In an ideal world we wouldn't have tuition loans because there wouldn't be tuition fees. Unfortunately the last 15-20 years of government have not prioritised education like they should do. Part of me suspects that if we had fewer universities with fewer students doing degrees that don't noticeably impact on career prospects then it might be viable to completely do away with fees. That's a different discussion for another day, though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    A back of an envelope calculation suggests that if you do a four year course taking the full loan in every year then you need to earn about £50,000 within one year of graduating just to stop the interest accumulating. Effectively unless you're earning a lot more than this very sooner after graduating you will never pay it off in full. Only a very small minority of graduates will get jobs that well paid so quickly (largely lawyers and doctors, I expect) so my advice is to forget about it and consider that you're more than likely to be getting a very cheap education.

    The rhetoric about not being able to afford university because of the increased fees is largely a load of rubbish because every EU student gets government loans which cover the costs which most people will never actually pay back.

    In a way I am slightly envious of the people on the new fees because although they have a greater amount of debt they will most likely end up paying less back over their lifetimes. I graduated with about £21,000 in debt but I have to start repaying 9% of what I earn over £15,000 so it's pretty likely I will at some point pay that off (plus the interest that is currently accumulating).


    In an ideal world we wouldn't have tuition loans because there wouldn't be tuition fees. Unfortunately the last 15-20 years of government have not prioritised education like they should do. Part of me suspects that if we had fewer universities with fewer students doing degrees that don't noticeably impact on career prospects then it might be viable to completely do away with fees. That's a different discussion for another day, though.
    Cool.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stemmery)
    I'm not against paying any money. I earn a lot more than £21k already. I'm just saying I know how hard it is for some people who have families etc and have things to pay for that these massive tuition fees would just be a burden on them. If you ended up as a single parent with rent to pay, food, childcare etc etc and £60 a month on top of all that, I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy. Instead of being judgmental, think about the bigger picture, there are people that could end up in lots of different situations and these extreme tuition fees don't help at all.
    I'm sure I wouldn't be too happy, I'd be a lot less happy when I lose several thousand to tax and NI. The simply fact is if you're earning 30k a year then £60 is going to be less than 3% of your monthly salary so it's hardly the end of the world


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Student fees don't really worry me. How I think of it, I will never be poor from having student debt. The amount I have to pay back will always be affordable. And I wouldn't feel pressure to pay it all off at once as by paying the minimum each month I would probably end up repaying less. I actually prefer our tuition fee system to the "free" way of studying abroad. I have looked into studying in Germany where it is free and living costs are lower, as I did not initially want to get imto debt. But due to the lack of financial support I would get, I think I would actually be worse of overall, having more finance problems at uni itself rather than later on when I am hopefully more financially stable.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    The hypocrasy of governments imposing fee rises when they went through the system supported by free fees, grants and housing benefit is what annoys me.


    Yes the system is essentially a graduate tax....so why not make it applicable to all graduates rather than pushing the load onto those going through university recently.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    The hypocrasy of governments imposing fee rises when they went through the system supported by free fees, grants and housing benefit is what annoys me.


    Yes the system is essentially a graduate tax....so why not make it applicable to all graduates rather than pushing the load onto those going through university recently.
    It wouldn't get passed if it was graduates. Your whole point is ridiculous though, fees had to be introduced to cope with the massive increase in university students


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Wade-)
    It wouldn't get passed if it was graduates. Your whole point is ridiculous though, fees had to be introduced to cope with the massive increase in university students


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As one of those graduates I'd have been in favour of the system fairly spreading the burden across everyone who benefited from a degree.

    I'm afraid you're not correct about the financial motivations for introducing fees. The increase to £3k did introduce more money into the system. The change to £9k was cost neutral to the government (but shifted the cost from annual grants to universities to annual debt subsidies to the SLC books - long term the increased fees will likely cost the treasury more than the old system as the level of bad debts becomes clear - the gov models were built on an assumed average fee loan of £7.5k to subsidise and were cost neutral at that level) and has reduced university income, massively increased volatility in university finances all while increasing the personal debt on students.

    Edit: also WHAT growth in students? In 2008 the gov introduced a quota for mew students (on top of the tolerance band controls over total students). They had 100% control over the growth in student numbers.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    As one of those graduates I'd have been in favour of the system fairly spreading the burden across everyone who benefited from a degree.

    I'm afraid you're not correct about the financial motivations for introducing fees. The increase to £3k did introduce more money into the system. The change to £9k was cost neutral to the government (but shifted the cost from annual grants to universities to annual debt subsidies to the SLC books - long term the increased fees will likely cost the treasury more than the old system as the level of bad debts becomes clear - the gov models were built on an assumed average fee loan of £7.5k to subsidise and were cost neutral at that level) and has reduced university income, massively increased volatility in university finances all while increasing the personal debt on students.

    Edit: also WHAT growth in students? In 2008 the gov introduced a quota for mew students (on top of the tolerance band controls over total students). They had 100% control over the growth in student numbers.
    Growth through the 90's that led to the introduction of fees. Numbers of students are still growing www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25432377

    I think this election has shown financial reports can be very different depending on where they come from

    I'm saying as a principle of law they could not have created a graduate tax


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 

1,453

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.