'High quality' unis to increase tuition fees

You guys hold the power. No one is putting a gun to your head making you go to uni. If you want to see a stop to a rise in fees unite and make a stand and refuse to pay it.

Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.

Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.

Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.

Since most students don't fully pay back the loan and it gets written off after 30 years wouldn't a small increase in tuition fees make very little difference to most students as it is likely to be written off except for those on very high graduate salaries and be more beneficial to the universities who are in need of funding?

The Guardian actually did the maths once and found that the increase to £9,000 p/a did not actually result in any increased income for the universities, because less people manage to actually pay it off. So any increase is totally pointless.

So. You'll only pay the debt if you become rich after uni and can afford to. It will make more of it loans but they only pay it back when they earn enough.

There is no evidence that fees have made people less likely to apply. In fact the total amount of applications is growing.

Why do you think a man working as a plumber shiuld have to pay for a son of a millionaire to attend university?

Just because the amount of applications hasn't changed, doesn't make it just to whop a whole load of debt onto students.

And surely your argument about a plumber paying for a millionaires son to go to university is mute, it costs approximately £50,000 a year to keep a criminal in prison. So surely with your reasoning, why should someone who's never committed a crime have to pay to accommodate and feed a criminal?

The debt only gets paid back if you can afford it though. They don't demand money back from people on the dole you know. I'd also add it's wiped after 30 years so you have to earn a lot to actually pay it all.

Not really, putting a criminal in prison keeps society safe, sending a millionaires son offers no favour to the working man.

I know you only pay it back when you get paid over £21,000 and it gets wiped after 30 years. It still doens't change the fact that even just by doing a bachelors degree you'll come out with £50,000-£60,000 of debt.
Maybe the working man should be less selfish and put the future of his country first.

Well you only pay it back if you earn a sizeable amount.

hahahahahahaha. You're happy to tax people who can barely afford to live just to pay for some posh snobs uni fees.

Why should university be free anyhow?

University shouldn't be free, I never said that. I just think they should have kept it how it was, before scrapping maintenance grants.

First of all, if your parents
earn over a certain amount, the student wont get any maintenance grant. So really it doesn't make a difference if the student comes from a rich family or not. Maybe you should stop character-assassinating people.
Infact, a rich person would be borrowing less, AND the family would be paying more tax. I have a friend and 40% of her family's earnings go to tax.

Everyones tax is based off what they earn, m8. If someone is earning less, they'll just have to deal with it essentially.

Why should their lack of success jeopardize someone elses?

I don't even get the point, it's not like they're ever going to actually see anywhere near all of this money paid back. They're increasing it to figures where theyd may as well just keep going, because nobody is ever going to pay them.

Is this a return to a two tier system where the best education is a reserve for the wealthiest?

I have a friend and 40% of her family's earnings go to tax.

Thank you for writing all of that. My family are in the 40% tax bracket, but it doesn't mean we're rich. My sister still has a student loan for her tuition fees, still has a maintenance loan and still has to have a job to pay for her rent and her food and her clothes.

My parents can't afford to just give her money for her rent, etc. In fact, they can't give her any at all, so she works incredibly long hours evening/weekends to pay for her living costs because of her pitifully small maintenance loan. Then there's her friend - whose dad pays her £300 a month - that gets the full maintenance grant.

It's all based on incomings, not assets, etc, and people aren't as well off as others think they are. It's a stupid system and quite frankly unfair.

My parents have been in the 40% tax bracket for a matter of about two years and that is only through my dad's ****ing hard work (he works around 12 hours a day as he is a contractor in Aerospace). My sister has been in University for 3 years. Tell me again how my parents should have "saved up" for our education when they have a mortgage, debts from having to borrow to pay for food before they were as well off as they are now.

Neither went to University, or even further education beyond GCSEs, because they couldn't afford to stay in education, my grandparents are factory workers and very much working class. My dad joined the air force in an apprenticeship - which is how he got into the Aerospace industry - because he grew up in an area known for its unemployment and poor education. I've had a job since I was 15 due to the work around my area in my dad's job being severely cut, so I could help to pay for the mortgage and debt we are in. Luckily he got a job back in September, but we were totally ****ed for months.

It's only recently we've been this comfortable. But trust me, I know what it's like to have to ask your friend for money to pay for food, to have to work long hours to pay for your family's mortgage at 15 years old, or to help with debt repayments.

It's people like you that bother me to no end. Just because our family is comfortable now doesn't mean **** - and it doesn't for a lot of people, too. Just because we got to a great position through my family's sheer ****ing hard work doesn't mean they had a great start out in their early 20s-30s. They never had enough money to save up for our future when they have debts that need to be paid - and debts that they had to have just to ****ing put a roof over my sister and I's head.

Also, I never once said anyone should pay higher taxes to support my sister, did I? No. Don't put words in my mouth tyvm. I stated that it's a ridiculous system; that a girl, whose father has enough money to provide her with £400 a month because he owns huge amounts of assets should get the full maintenance grant simply because it's not in incomes.

I fail to see why some people can live off of the benefit system and the back of other hardworking people all their ****ing lives, never bothering to get a job, and then their kids have the full amount to support them throughout university. It disgusts me. Just because my parents worked hard and are now in a good financial position doesn't mean we don't need help, dumbass.