Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

So what do you all think about having a newly elected Tory Gov? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    This isn't true. Both party's policies were clearly aimed at decreasing the deficit. The difference is that the Tory's (who promised to be finished a year ago) promised to be done in a year whilst Labour said they'd be done by the end of their term. Why the longer recovery? Because the various ideas floated by Tory HQ to cut the deficit include raising the bedroom tax, raising tuition fees to 12K and scrapping mandatory maternity leave for women.

    Can people stop with the blatant hyperbole? No political party WANTS economic instability, meltdown, crisis etc. Additionally, no political party is capable of stopping that from happening (see 2008, when Conservative spending was the SAME as Labour spending anyway. But who gets flak for the global recession?) Additionally, I hope, the Tory's don't actively hate young people or the disabled. They just don't realise what a 200% tuition fee raise means, or what the bedroom tax does. And then, once they've done it, they wilfully don't realise what those do. Because the only thing that loses more face than hypocrisy is probably murder (invading a country doesn't qualify either). Anyway, </rant>, whenever I hear someone say "The Tory's hate xyz" or "Labour doesn't know how to run an economy", I just blank out that statement.
    Labour's promise on the deficit specifically excluded borrowing for "investment", which is the term they used to cover their previous overspending.
    "Bedroom tax"? So you believe that the taxpayer should pay for people on benefits to have larger houses than they need. I'm struggling to understand why I should pay for X's spare bedroom before I'm allowed to save up for one of my own. I'm also not sure why working class people should subsidise the university education of rich kids - I don't even understand why that's a Labour policy, it seems very regressive to me. Also, I'm not sure it's the Government's place to tell new mothers whether or when they are allowed to work. None of these Labour policies even sound like a good idea.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    Labour's promise on the deficit specifically excluded borrowing for "investment", which is the term they used to cover their previous overspending.
    "Bedroom tax"? So you believe that the taxpayer should pay for people on benefits to have larger houses than they need. I'm struggling to understand why I should pay for X's spare bedroom before I'm allowed to save up for one of my own. I'm also not sure why working class people should subsidise the university education of rich kids - I don't even understand why that's a Labour policy, it seems very regressive to me. Also, I'm not sure it's the Government's place to tell new mothers whether or when they are allowed to work. None of these Labour policies even sound like a good idea.
    The UK is the first country to ever be investigated by the UN for mistreatment of disabled people. Doesn't sound like a great policy.

    In fairness, I suppose the news stories are the worst cases, but still.

    What are you on? Labour doesn't wasn't the working classes to subsidise the rich. Why do people keep suggesting that making something state funded is the same as charging the working classes? It's not, Labour supports progressive taxation, unlike the Tory's who raised VAT and lowered income tax.

    I hope you support the mansion tax at least if you support the bedroom tax? I don't see why people need expensive houses when thousands are being charged to live in council housing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    The UK is the first country to ever be investigated by the UN for mistreatment of disabled people. Doesn't sound like a great policy.

    In fairness, I suppose the news stories are the worst cases, but still.

    What are you on? Labour doesn't wasn't the working classes to subsidise the rich. Why do people keep suggesting that making something state funded is the same as charging the working classes? It's not, Labour supports progressive taxation, unlike the Tory's who raised VAT and lowered income tax.

    I hope you support the mansion tax at least if you support the bedroom tax? I don't see why people need expensive houses when thousands are being charged to live in council housing.
    You seem confused. Where do you think the state gets the funds? It seems like you think that working class people don't have to pay any tax.
    VAT is not a progressive tax. Income tax is a progressive tax. By increasing VAT and reducing income tax disproportionately for the low paid, the last coalition government's policy was much more progressive than Labour.

    I don't understand the mansion tax. It seems one of the most stupid new tax ideas ever.
    Why on earth should you tax people on their house (which most likely is not a mansion) but not tax somebody with millions of pounds worth of any other asset? It's crazy.
    If A lives in a house worth £3m but has a huge mortgage, he should pay more tax than someone with £3m of shares, cars, gold, cash, etc.?? Why does that make sense? More to the point, how is that a traditional Labour idea?


    Suppose you have to pay £10k per year on a house worth £2m. That's the general idea, right? The only thing that makes a £2m house worth £2m is somebody's willingness to pay that much for it. If something that is now valued at £2m suddenly acquires a liability to pay thousands in tax each year, it will equally suddenly become worth hundreds of thousands of pounds less.
    Incidentally, by "mansion" you intend also to tax people living in normal sized terraced houses in London).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    You seem confused. Where do you think the state gets the funds? It seems like you think that working class people don't have to pay any tax.
    VAT is not a progressive tax. Income tax is a progressive tax. By increasing VAT and reducing income tax disproportionately for the low paid, the last coalition government's policy was much more progressive than Labour.

    I don't understand the mansion tax. It seems one of the most stupid new tax ideas ever.
    Why on earth should you tax people on their house (which most likely is not a mansion) but not tax somebody with millions of pounds worth of any other asset? It's crazy.
    If A lives in a house worth £3m but has a huge mortgage, he should pay more tax than someone with £3m of shares, cars, gold, cash, etc.?? Why does that make sense? More to the point, how is that a traditional Labour idea?


    Suppose you have to pay £10k per year on a house worth £2m. That's the general idea, right? The only thing that makes a £2m house worth £2m is somebody's willingness to pay that much for it. If something that is now valued at £2m suddenly acquires a liability to pay thousands in tax each year, it will equally suddenly become worth hundreds of thousands of pounds less.
    Incidentally, by "mansion" you intend also to tax people living in normal sized terraced houses in London).
    I know income tax is progressive. The Tory's lowered the top rate to 45% - lowering a progressive tax is regressive.

    I'm also aware that VAT is a regressive tax. Again, the Tory's raised it (not sure what Labour plans on this are).

    The only progressive part of Tory tax policy was that they raised the tax free allowance. Labour was also going to do this, and to increase the minimum wage iirc.

    You mean those terraced houses which people are living in and can't move from? £2M is enough to live out the rest of your life retired (comfortably). Compare to the bedroom tax, where people were living in state accommodation, then suddenly asked to pay money they didn't have because the state decided it had been too generous! Oh, and then they were actually kicked out. Because there isn't enough council housing you can't move people to smaller homes, so you shouldn't tax them on larger homes.

    The mansion tax is a very Labour idea. Robin Hood taxes are literally the most stereotypical left wing policy possible. A mansion tax would tax mainly Russian and other international owners who have driven up London house prices so much. I do agree that it needed a few changes. £2M was right for the country as a whole, but should have been higher in London. But the arguments against the mansion tax seem far weaker than against the bedroom tax.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    I know income tax is progressive. The Tory's lowered the top rate to 45% - lowering a progressive tax is regressive.

    I'm also aware that VAT is a regressive tax. Again, the Tory's raised it (not sure what Labour plans on this are).

    The only progressive part of Tory tax policy was that they raised the tax free allowance. Labour was also going to do this, and to increase the minimum wage iirc.

    You mean those terraced houses which people are living in and can't move from? £2M is enough to live out the rest of your life retired (comfortably). Compare to the bedroom tax, where people were living in state accommodation, then suddenly asked to pay money they didn't have because the state decided it had been too generous! Oh, and then they were actually kicked out. Because there isn't enough council housing you can't move people to smaller homes, so you shouldn't tax them on larger homes.

    The mansion tax is a very Labour idea. Robin Hood taxes are literally the most stereotypical left wing policy possible. A mansion tax would tax mainly Russian and other international owners who have driven up London house prices so much. I do agree that it needed a few changes. £2M was right for the country as a whole, but should have been higher in London. But the arguments against the mansion tax seem far weaker than against the bedroom tax.
    Labour had no policy to raise the tax-free allowance at all(I checked their 2010 manifesto). It's perverse to complain about a 5% tax cut for a few high earners (which raised very little tax) while ignoring a 20% tax cut for all low earners.

    It's not a Robin Hood tax to take money from people with a house but not to take it from people with the same amount of cash, which by definition they don't need as much. It's nonsensical. What it does is to penalise resident houseowners relative to tycoons with piles of cash.

    Why did Labour not build council houses during its 13 years of "unparalleled prosperity"? In fact it built fewer council houses than Thatcher. Are you sure Labour is working for the working class?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    Labour had no policy to raise the tax-free allowance at all(I checked their 2010 manifesto). It's perverse to complain about a 5% tax cut for a few high earners (which raised very little tax) while ignoring a 20% tax cut for all low earners.

    It's not a Robin Hood tax to take money from people with a house but not to take it from people with the same amount of cash, which by definition they don't need as much. It's nonsensical. What it does is to penalise resident houseowners relative to tycoons with piles of cash.

    Why did Labour not build council houses during its 13 years of "unparalleled prosperity"? In fact it built fewer council houses than Thatcher. Are you sure Labour is working for the working class?
    This is true, and it's quite sad that we've basically stopped caring at all. At this election though, it was Labour who promised to build new council houses. Not the Conservatives, who are currently taxing those who live in them for the pleasure.

    How would you like a Robin hood tax to work? The rich tend to have expensive houses, the poor don't. Taxing expensive houses ought to be as good a proxy as any, quite possibly better than bank accounts since those who are rich enough will have most of their money banked outside of the UK (especially if we tax savings above a certain threshold, which is I think your suggestion? That sounds ludicrous frankly.)

    Oh, and whilst yes, going from 50 to 45 is not a big deal remember that:
    (a) They initially went to 40%
    and more importantly,
    (b) There was no reason to! They hadn't promised anyone that they'd do that. The majority of people earning that much vote Tory regardless, and all they were doing is lowering taxes! Political party's never lower taxes but they did for the richest!

    Yes, raising the tax free allowance is a great policy, it's progressive and since the people you were taxing hardly earned much anyway, it's cheap. However, saying it's a 20% tax cut is disingenuous because that's not what it is. TBH though, I don't know what's happened to the other tax brackets in terms of inflation and can't find any reliable data.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    This is true, and it's quite sad that we've basically stopped caring at all. At this election though, it was Labour who promised to build new council houses. Not the Conservatives, who are currently taxing those who live in them for the pleasure.

    How would you like a Robin hood tax to work? The rich tend to have expensive houses, the poor don't. Taxing expensive houses ought to be as good a proxy as any, quite possibly better than bank accounts since those who are rich enough will have most of their money banked outside of the UK (especially if we tax savings above a certain threshold, which is I think your suggestion? That sounds ludicrous frankly.)

    Oh, and whilst yes, going from 50 to 45 is not a big deal remember that:
    (a) They initially went to 40%
    and more importantly,
    (b) There was no reason to! They hadn't promised anyone that they'd do that. The majority of people earning that much vote Tory regardless, and all they were doing is lowering taxes! Political party's never lower taxes but they did for the richest!

    Yes, raising the tax free allowance is a great policy, it's progressive and since the people you were taxing hardly earned much anyway, it's cheap. However, saying it's a 20% tax cut is disingenuous because that's not what it is. TBH though, I don't know what's happened to the other tax brackets in terms of inflation and can't find any reliable data.
    I agree. It's ludicrous to try to tax wealth, it just makes it disappear.
    Actually political parties do lower tax. It's pretty much the most basic Tory principle to reduce tax, and conversely pretty much Labour's most basic principle to increase it.
    It's not very disingenous. Obviously the cut in tax depends on any individual's income. For a low earner, it would have been much more than a 20% cut in tax, and for a high earner, pretty negligible. Re. other tax brackets, I think "fiscal drag" says it all. I think the 40% boundary moved up a bit, but less than inflation.
    We shouldn't forget that we are in an EU where other countries have flat income and tax rates all under 20%. I think we need to remember that if we push too far on tax, people can move easily now - especially the very rich, who pay most of the tax. Raising tax on the rich isn't necessarily good for the coffers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    This is true, and it's quite sad that we've basically stopped caring at all. At this election though, it was Labour who promised to build new council houses. Not the Conservatives, who are currently taxing those who live in them for the pleasure.

    How would you like a Robin hood tax to work? The rich tend to have expensive houses, the poor don't. Taxing expensive houses ought to be as good a proxy as any, quite possibly better than bank accounts since those who are rich enough will have most of their money banked outside of the UK (especially if we tax savings above a certain threshold, which is I think your suggestion? That sounds ludicrous frankly.)

    Oh, and whilst yes, going from 50 to 45 is not a big deal remember that:
    (a) They initially went to 40%
    and more importantly,
    (b) There was no reason to! They hadn't promised anyone that they'd do that. The majority of people earning that much vote Tory regardless, and all they were doing is lowering taxes! Political party's never lower taxes but they did for the richest!

    Yes, raising the tax free allowance is a great policy, it's progressive and since the people you were taxing hardly earned much anyway, it's cheap. However, saying it's a 20% tax cut is disingenuous because that's not what it is. TBH though, I don't know what's happened to the other tax brackets in terms of inflation and can't find any reliable data.
    Re. it being sad that we've stopped caring. I don't think we have stopped caring. But caring and spending are different. However, if we can't afford to spend, we have to accept that money isn't limitless and perhaps look back and reflect on the colossal sums we have spent to "care" and the enormous size of those budgets. Off the top of my head, we spend something like £350 billion per year on health and social spending. That's around £10,000 per taxpayer per year. It's also a hell of a lot more money than the average taxpayer pays in tax.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    Re. it being sad that we've stopped caring. I don't think we have stopped caring. But caring and spending are different. However, if we can't afford to spend, we have to accept that money isn't limitless and perhaps look back and reflect on the colossal sums we have spent to "care" and the enormous size of those budgets. Off the top of my head, we spend something like £350 billion per year on health and social spending. That's around £10,000 per taxpayer per year. It's also a hell of a lot more money than the average taxpayer pays in tax.
    Okay... I agree that I was conflating caring with spending. The point was that in Thatcher's time that was just how many council houses were being built. An equal or greater number would have been built under Labour - Thatcher didn't have any desire to build council houses, it's just that if she'd built as few as we are now she'd have had an(other) outcry.

    Think of it like this: even if it's excusable in principle, Cameron will never replace the NHS with an American style healthcare system. Because he'd go down in history as the PM who sold the NHS. It doesn't even matter if he personally thought that the NHS was an inefficient system, or if he had hard data to suggest that the change would save money and lives. He literally cannot do it, party line or no. But in 20 years if the public attitude were to change, even a Labour government could possible get away with it.

    That aside, I don't actually know what we're arguing/debating anymore. I don't like party systems because they force individuals to make stupid situations like having to only make choices which cut budgets but don't raise any taxes. Regardless, it still makes little sense to make statements like "Labour will ruin the economy" because political parties aren't really in charge of the economy beyond broad brush strokes, and anyone who will be put in charge will be a reasonably qualified economist. They're not idiots, however much they might seem to be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Because it's the middle classes who are paying it back?

    Here's the scenarios:

    Upper class - Pays 27k. They have that to spare.
    Upper middle class Pays 27k, again, they might actually have somewhere to pull 27k out of a hat from. They might not though, so some people are going to go from being upper class to having 40+K of debt and no way of paying it back. But it's fine, because when they're 41 we'll give them their life back,
    Lower middle class- Pays 27k, is now 27k in debt. By the time they come out of Uni, they're 40+K in debt. Now, if they miraculously get a good job, then they can start to pay off that lovely mountain of debt. If they don't (skivers! Burn them!) then... they pay marginally higher taxes effectively, and continue to have the same career track and lifestyle once their debt is written off after 20 years.
    Me- I want to study a four year course, so that's a 36K loan, which plus maintenance is too much to think about. Plus four years interest in which I can't make any real money because I'm studying. Now, yes I can in theory just go unemployed and homeless until I'm 42 and never pay a penny, but 46grand is an awful lot of money to have on your back.

    What's your plan? I genuinely can't see a sensible career path in which having to start with that much debt is a good thing. The only viable solution is to not pay back all of it because you don't earn enough, or to be super rich. This necessarily kills off anyone aspiring to earn a decent amount (not everyone can be super rich obviously).
    it's not exactly a torturous loan though; the rate of payback is tiny compared to most loans. I see your point but I'm still not sure that's a class issue. For one, assuming parents haven't paid it off, everyone else will just pay it off at whatever the rate is for what they earn. Class is irrelevant.
    Your issue appears to be the idea of how much is owed, which I think is the wrong focus. For one, uni itself is far more expensive if it wasn't paid for by said loans so I like that it adds some gravity.

    Me? I don't really care personally because I think the payback system is great and the loan/debt is one that is not a big deal. If I thought it was extortionate I wouldn't have gone to uni.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's the worst result possible but I'm just a dirty socialist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crb822)
    The rioters in London were thugs. If all they wanted to do was have an anti-austerity protest then why the need for violence? Those "desperate" people did graffiti on the war memorial which was extremely disrespectful. What makes you empathise for people who have nothing better to do but cause damage?
    I'm still struggling to see how a protest which the police called largely "peaceful" is composed of thugs, nor how every single person contributed to painting on a war memorial.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    it's not exactly a torturous loan though; the rate of payback is tiny compared to most loans. I see your point but I'm still not sure that's a class issue. For one, assuming parents haven't paid it off, everyone else will just pay it off at whatever the rate is for what they earn. Class is irrelevant.
    Your issue appears to be the idea of how much is owed, which I think is the wrong focus. For one, uni itself is far more expensive if it wasn't paid for by said loans so I like that it adds some gravity.

    Me? I don't really care personally because I think the payback system is great and the loan/debt is one that is not a big deal. If I thought it was extortionate I wouldn't have gone to uni.
    I know this is undermining my stance, but what actually is the payback rate? I don't know where to find it (I had a look, admittedly not too good of one.)

    The bolded sentence makes no sense. We're not discussing whether I should take out a loan to pay the 36K tuition fees I'm being charged. We're discussing whether I should be charged 36K or something less. Because obviously I'm taking out a loan on something that's over 1000% of my savings. If that's not what you meant, your sentence just make no sense. Please reword.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    I know this is undermining my stance, but what actually is the payback rate? I don't know where to find it (I had a look, admittedly not too good of one.)

    The bolded sentence makes no sense. We're not discussing whether I should take out a loan to pay the 36K tuition fees I'm being charged. We're discussing whether I should be charged 36K or something less. Because obviously I'm taking out a loan on something that's over 1000% of my savings. If that's not what you meant, your sentence just make no sense. Please reword.
    http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.u..._schema=PORTAL
    ^That's probably the best page that explains it

    I was trying to say, albeit badly, that the cost of university itself is usually higher than current loans, and the £9k loan at least reflects that, adds some gravity to whether people choose to go.
    Whereas if it was free, people go willy nilly and get degrees that aren't worthwhile and they don't stop to consider the huge cost to the taxpayer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.u..._schema=PORTAL
    ^That's probably the best page that explains it

    I was trying to say, albeit badly, that the cost of university itself is usually higher than current loans, and the £9k loan at least reflects that, adds some gravity to whether people choose to go.
    Whereas if it was free, people go willy nilly and get degrees that aren't worthwhile and they don't stop to consider the huge cost to the taxpayer.
    Oh right, you meant that the government is still subsidizing universities (which implies that the cost of a place is more than 9k/year)?

    That's true but I don't think that the statement that people will choose with more gravitas when they're being charged more is really defensible. I mean, if you want more people to take STEM subjects, you can do that directly. If you want to make less people take English Lit then again, you can do that directly in some manner which isn't raising prices - that's quite possibly one of the worst tools you could use which still *in theory* works.

    I say *in theory* because afaik, the number of students entering uni has continued to rise at about the same rate.

    Also: it just occurred to me that at least back in 2010, one of the main justifications for raising uni fees was 'degree inflation', or the fact that the job market had too many graduates. Given that contemporary justification, doesn't it seem like the purpose was in reality to prevent people taking degrees? And this will obviously disproportionately affect the poor if it works at all, which it didn't (again, afaik).

    Thanks for the link, I'll run some numbers
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.u..._schema=PORTAL
    ^That's probably the best page that explains it

    I was trying to say, albeit badly, that the cost of university itself is usually higher than current loans, and the £9k loan at least reflects that, adds some gravity to whether people choose to go.
    Whereas if it was free, people go willy nilly and get degrees that aren't worthwhile and they don't stop to consider the huge cost to the taxpayer.
    Ah, thanks for the numbers- that's actually very clear, I'd thought the system was more complex than that!

    Ok, so here's the numbers (doing this as I go):

    4 years at 9k/year + 2.5k maintainance = 46K loan
    4 years interest (3% I think)--> 52K
    4 years interest (1% just in case) -->48K

    I want to study physics, so the most recent figures I could find (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...arting-salary/) suggest a starting salary of £24,500/year

    That means I have to pay £644.85 (this is way too many sig figs, £600-£700 is pretty much the limit of accuracy but whatever) per year. At 1% interest rate (£480/year) this is £170 paid off per year, this is a 280 year payoff period (actually, I can't be bothered to do this properly. Interest decreases as it's paid off, the point is that you're definitely not paying it off with a salary of 25K.)

    At 3% interest, the interest is more than I'd be paying off. 3% interest/year on a 52K debt is £1560/year. To be paying more money than that, your salary needs to exceed £34668 (again, too many sig figs, just showing that I actually did the calc, £35K is plenty accurate).

    So, with 3% interest on a 46K loan, you need a salary of 35K to be paying off interest. Of course, that's an infinite payoff period.

    So, last scenario, and I'll do the maths accurately now. Here's the deal:

    46K loan assumed. 3% interest/year assumed. Your starting salary is £24.5K and grows geometrically (multiplies by a constant each year), such that your loan is paid off by the end of 2o years (which I think is the window).

    I'll post the result - what do you expect that to come out as? I'll handle the decreasing interest properly this time. (Oh, also do you know where I can check the interest rates on this thing? I seem to recall 3%, but 1% actually seems likely, and this makes a big difference. Thanks.)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Oh right, you meant that the government is still subsidizing universities (which implies that the cost of a place is more than 9k/year)?
    It's roughly now accurately reflecting the cost yes, though STEM subjects cost more. It's be unwise to increase fees any more as then students would be subsidizing STEM and that difference IMO should either be down to govt. ideally or STEM students.

    That's true but I don't think that the statement that people will choose with more gravitas when they're being charged more is really defensible. I mean, if you want more people to take STEM subjects, you can do that directly. If you want to make less people take English Lit then again, you can do that directly in some manner which isn't raising prices - that's quite possibly one of the worst tools you could use which still *in theory* works.

    I say *in theory* because afaik, the number of students entering uni has continued to rise at about the same rate.
    But people currently and before the raise did not take uni very seriously. I would love to see someone defend Harry Potter studies, subsidized courtsey of taxpayer. The raise overally made it reflect the true price and the additional but not main benefit was it being taken as a serious thing.
    Also: it just occurred to me that at least back in 2010, one of the main justifications for raising uni fees was 'degree inflation', or the fact that the job market had too many graduates. Given that contemporary justification, doesn't it seem like the purpose was in reality to prevent people taking degrees? And this will obviously disproportionately affect the poor if it works at all, which it didn't (again, afaik).

    Thanks for the link, I'll run some numbers
    Mm, I suppose the idea might but as you say more people went to uni and there's been no rise in richer students going. For one the loan system is disproportionately benefiting poor students, middle class ones remaining most affected [but again, that particular thing is unaffected by rises]
    And additionally alternatives like apprenticeships are on the rise so that's good anyway.

    (Original post by lerjj)
    Ah, thanks for the numbers- that's actually very clear, I'd thought the system was more complex than that!

    Ok, so here's the numbers (doing this as I go):

    4 years at 9k/year + 2.5k maintainance = 46K loan
    4 years interest (3% I think)--> 52K
    4 years interest (1% just in case) -->48K

    I want to study physics, so the most recent figures I could find (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...arting-salary/) suggest a starting salary of £24,500/year

    That means I have to pay £644.85 (this is way too many sig figs, £600-£700 is pretty much the limit of accuracy but whatever) per year. At 1% interest rate (£480/year) this is £170 paid off per year, this is a 280 year payoff period (actually, I can't be bothered to do this properly. Interest decreases as it's paid off, the point is that you're definitely not paying it off with a salary of 25K.)

    At 3% interest, the interest is more than I'd be paying off. 3% interest/year on a 52K debt is £1560/year. To be paying more money than that, your salary needs to exceed £34668 (again, too many sig figs, just showing that I actually did the calc, £35K is plenty accurate).

    So, with 3% interest on a 46K loan, you need a salary of 35K to be paying off interest. Of course, that's an infinite payoff period.

    So, last scenario, and I'll do the maths accurately now. Here's the deal:

    46K loan assumed. 3% interest/year assumed. Your starting salary is £24.5K and grows geometrically (multiplies by a constant each year), such that your loan is paid off by the end of 2o years (which I think is the window).

    I'll post the result - what do you expect that to come out as? I'll handle the decreasing interest properly this time. (Oh, also do you know where I can check the interest rates on this thing? I seem to recall 3%, but 1% actually seems likely, and this makes a big difference. Thanks.)
    For our Plan 2 Loan I believe it is 3% + RPI
    ( http://www.slc.co.uk/services/interest-rates.aspx )

    P.s. that math made my head implode; too much law revision to cope
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The B)
    I'm still struggling to see how a protest which the police called largely "peaceful" is composed of thugs, nor how every single person contributed to painting on a war memorial.
    I never said that everyone at the protest was vandalising the war memorial. That's why I referred to those that did as the "rioters". There were many people who were peaceful protesting and I'm fine with that as I believe in freedom of speech. However, I do disagree with violence and vandalism and those are the ones who are the thugs and I have no sympathy for them at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    It's roughly now accurately reflecting the cost yes, though STEM subjects cost more. It's be unwise to increase fees any more as then students would be subsidizing STEM and that difference IMO should either be down to govt. ideally or STEM students.


    But people currently and before the raise did not take uni very seriously. I would love to see someone defend Harry Potter studies, subsidized courtsey of taxpayer. The raise overally made it reflect the true price and the additional but not main benefit was it being taken as a serious thing.

    Mm, I suppose the idea might but as you say more people went to uni and there's been no rise in richer students going. For one the loan system is disproportionately benefiting poor students, middle class ones remaining most affected [but again, that particular thing is unaffected by rises]
    And additionally alternatives like apprenticeships are on the rise so that's good anyway.



    For our Plan 2 Loan I believe it is 3% + RPI
    ( http://www.slc.co.uk/services/interest-rates.aspx )

    P.s. that math made my head implode; too much law revision to cope

    I had a feeling it was 3%. That's not looking good for me

    Here's a screenshot, I don't think I did anything wrong:


    Basically the gist is that if you model salaries as increasing, say 3% each year (i.e. a geometric increase, rather than a fixed £3k raise which seems less natural) then your salary has to increase dramatically to overcome a 3% interest rate on a 46K loan by 20 years. Specifically, you don't start decreasing the loan until 6 years out of uni, and by 20 years out you would be earning almost £140K. The debt remains above 46K until 13 years out of uni - all of it is then paid off quickly because your salary has gotten insane by this point using this model.

    Now, there's a couple of things which might be wrong with that simulation, but basically if you want to take out a 46K loan, you need to be earning a lot of money. A lot of students won't be earning that much I wager.

    I think that this sim is accurate enough that I ought to be worried by the results, although it's inaccurate enough that obviously you shouldn't use it for forecasting.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    terrible want to leave tbh
 
 
 
Poll
Would you rather
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.