Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

MPs debate student maintenance grants Watch

Announcements
    • Official TSR Representative
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    MPs are to debate student maintenance grants in the House of Commons on Tuesday 19 January from approximately 12.45pm, subject to change in Parliamentary business.

    MPs will debate the motion:

    "That this House calls upon the Government to abandon its policy on replacing maintenance grants with loans for lower income students."

    Watch the proceedings on Parliament TV.

    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    what is there to debate about?

    It's a perfectly reasonable decision, and those who don't like it are those who are bitter about being entitled to free money
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamsie555)
    what is there to debate about?

    It's a perfectly reasonable decision, and those who don't like it are those who are bitter about being entitled to free money
    They enable people who can't afford to go to university to go.
    If a bit of 'free money' enables a person to better their education and lives so they can contribute far more back to society when they are older then why not?

    I take it you also have a massive problem with corporate tax avoidance, given all the 'free money' such firms get?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They enable people who can't afford to go to university to go.
    If a bit of 'free money' enables a person to better their education and lives so they can contribute far more back to society when they are older then why not?

    I take it you also have a massive problem with corporate tax avoidance, given all the 'free money' such firms get?
    Yes I do have a problem with corporate tax avoidance, but this is not what this thread is about.

    It does not enable a person to better their education and life any more than getting a loan (which is what they will be replaced with). Unless you have a problem with paying back money which is given to you, then why would you be against this?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They enable people who can't afford to go to university to go.
    Given that the grant has been replaced by a loan which only has to be paid back over a minimum level of earnings, I fail to see how this is making university unaffordable for anyone.

    I take it you also have a massive problem with corporate tax avoidance, given all the 'free money' such firms get?
    This is not directed at me but, as somebody who agrees with the person it's directed towards, yes, I do have a problem with corporate tax avoidance.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Given that the grant has been replaced by a loan which only has to be paid back over a minimum level of earnings, I fail to see how this is making university unaffordable for anyone.
    It's yet more money our poorest in society are going to be saddled with. It adds to the problem we already have of students coming out of university saddled with debt. We are the sixth richest country in the world, surely we can afford to contribute more to our education.
    It also seems a bit too convenient.


    This is not directed at me but, as somebody who agrees with the person it's directed towards, yes, I do have a problem with corporate tax avoidance.
    That's admirable of you (that's not sarcastic). All too often, people who hark on about benefit fraud and 'free money' are suspiciously silent or even supportive of corporate tax avoidance. Fair play that you aren't.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamsie555)
    Yes I do have a problem with corporate tax avoidance, but this is not what this thread is about.

    It does not enable a person to better their education and life any more than getting a loan (which is what they will be replaced with). Unless you have a problem with paying back money which is given to you, then why would you be against this?

    We are the sixth richest country in the world. We manage to find ways to regularly cut taxes for corporations, do little about widespread corporate tax avoidance, cut inheritance tax etc while at the same time reducing any benefits for the poorest in society.

    It's yet more debt piled on for poor young people. The Tories talk about how high tax is a disincentive to earning more, yet with student fees you don't apply the same standard. If high taxes discourage you from earning more, then so do high level of tuition fees.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's yet more money our poorest in society are going to be saddled with. It adds to the problem we already have of students coming out of university saddled with debt.
    You're judging them by their parents' wealth rather than their own. They're not being saddled with any more debt than other graduates of the same income.

    I also don't think that it's fair to compare this kind of student debt with the traditional idea of debt that parents tend to warn their children about. Unlike a mortgage, nobody is going to repossess your house if you suddenly lose your job and miss a few instalments.

    We are the sixth richest country in the world, surely we can afford to contribute more to our education.
    It also seems a bit too convenient.
    We're the sixth richest country in the world, but also a country where just about everybody wants to go to university. My only personal qualm with the current system of student loans is that interest is charged on top of inflation -- I don't see any need for this.

    What do you mean that it's too convenient?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You're judging them by their parents' wealth rather than their own. They're not being saddled with any more debt than other graduates of the same income.

    I also don't think that it's fair to compare this kind of student debt with the traditional idea of debt that parents tend to warn their children about. Unlike a mortgage, nobody is going to repossess your house if you suddenly lose your job and miss a few instalments.



    We're the sixth richest country in the world, but also a country where just about everybody wants to go to university. My only personal qualm with the current system of student loans is that interest is charged on top of inflation -- I don't see any need for this.

    What do you mean that it's too convenient?

    I know we are all guilty of inconsistencies, I have been for sure like with the turnout figure and will try and avoid doing so in the future. But one real inconsistency I have noted with some on the right and the tories are their views on
    taxation compared with tutition fees.

    A regular line of argument seems to be 'increasing taxation is a disincentive to earn more'. But by the same token surely increasing tuition fees is a disincentive to earn more? Yet the same line of argument is not applied.

    I'm not against paying for your education. I don't believe in free university. I think 3k a year was fair, expecting students to pay a decent contribution. But asking people to start paying back what they now are is not good. I know it's not the same as a mortgage but effectively every graduate now starts 35-45k in debt already.
    It's also a system which favours the wealthy who can afford to pay it back quicker and therefore pay less in interest. Hardly something we should be promoting.


    I say convenient because while we aren't doing too much about corporate tax avoidance, while we are cutting inheritance tax, while we are cutting corporation tax, there is apparently no money left for students.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    A regular line of argument seems to be 'increasing taxation is a disincentive to earn more'. But by the same token surely increasing tuition fees is a disincentive to earn more? Yet the same line of argument is not applied.
    To be clear: it's not tuition fees that are being increased, it's the tuition fee cap. In reality, tuition for undergraduates at decent universities costs even more than £9 000 and the only thing that keeps it at that level is the cap. Bringing it down by any significant amount will mean that government funding for universities will either have to be increased or universities will have to cut back on spending. Since the latter is unlikely, the former is the obvious choice in that situation.

    Where does this increased funding come from? Taxation, most probably (cutting spending in other areas is hardly a popular choice). You're charging people the same one way or the other (neglecting the interest, to which I'm opposed). The only difference with the current approach is that the cost is somewhat individualised, whereas the alternative would involve taxing everyone.

    And despite that, people only pay back what they can, which seems to me a fair enough system. The ones that go on to earn highly will pay back the full amount; those that don't will either pay some or none of it back and will effectively have had their education subsidised in much the same way as would have been if it was free for all in the first place. So I really don't buy into this idea that the scrapping of the maintenance grants has suddenly deprived those of poorer backgrounds of the chance to enter higher education.

    I'm not against paying for your education. I don't believe in free university. I think 3k a year was fair, expecting students to pay a decent contribution. But asking people to start paying back what they now are is not good. I know it's not the same as a mortgage but effectively every graduate now starts 35-45k in debt already.
    Bold: Unless you're Welsh.

    There's a slight fault in your reasoning here. Nobody is being asked to pay back £35 000 - £45 000 -- I'll agree that it's unhelpful to call it a 'debt' because it gives the impression that all of it has to be paid back. People are only being asked to pay back 9 percent over a certain threshold each month. The total number itself is something of an irrelevance given the 30-year time limit on the 'debt.'

    I don't think that free-for-all higher education can work in this country given our culture and class mentality. If we had a system like Finland and Sweden with a choice between academic and vocational secondary schools instead of a culture of shoehorning as many people regardless of talent into universities, I would view the idea as more credible than it is at present.

    It's also a system which favours the wealthy who can afford to pay it back quicker and therefore pay less in interest. Hardly something we should be promoting.
    I'm opposed to charging interest on top of inflation. However, this is a minor point and hardly one substantial enough to dismiss the system outright.

    And it's quite easy to argue the opposite case with this one: it favours those on lower incomes by ensuring that they don't pay all of it back. In its essence, it's a system where you pay back what you can and that, surely, isn't any favour to the wealthy.

    I say convenient because while we aren't doing too much about corporate tax avoidance, while we are cutting inheritance tax, while we are cutting corporation tax, there is apparently no money left for students.
    That's a fair point about the corporate tax avoidance, but I can't agree with your contention about inheritance tax (especially when it's only being abolished for non-millionaires...). And the rate of corporate tax is just fine if the problem of tax avoidance is dealt with.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    We should turn the whole benefit system into a loan. The more you take the more you have to repay. However I think the limit that a person should repay be lowered to 60% the median wage which is £12600 and then you repay 9% anything over that. Also while your claiming you should also have to make repayments also. This will encourage people to get off welfare and into work.

    If you get sanctioned though you will be treated as still getting your benefit income and this income will continue to accumulate on the debt that you owe the Government. This will encourage compliance & respect.

    Government should have the final say on any threshold increase each year like David Cameron rightfully has. He did promise to increase the £21000 threshold inline with earnings but as inflation has remained at 0% he went back on his word and this is perfectly acceptable. I agree with David Cameron that £21000 threshold is very generous.

    All benefits should be paid onto a EBT card and people using EBT cards should have to wear a hand-band.Purple for disabled, Green for Job Seeker and Red for those on Tax Credits. This is so claimants can be identified by members of the public if they happen to be faking a disability or trying to spend welfare money on things they shouldn't be.

    Once a claimant becomes deceased all their property must be confiscated if any outstanding debts remain. The Government must become the first person on any will made if any debt is outstanding.

    This is only fair to all the hard working tax payers who make our welfare state possible.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    people using EBT cards should have to wear a hand-band.Purple for disabled, Green for Job Seeker and Red for those on Tax Credits. This is so claimants can be identified by members of the public if they happen to be faking a disability or trying to spend welfare money on things they shouldn't be.
    Thought you were making a serious post until this part. Back in your box, you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Thought you were making a serious post until this part. Back in your box, you.
    Sorry I am just trying to be more Tory. Maybe you can tutor me. Im really looking to be a heartless middle class toff.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Sorry I am just trying to be more Tory. Maybe you can tutor me. Im really looking to be a heartless middle class toff.
    You got one out of three right. This must be a big achievement for you. :clap2:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You got one out of three right. This must be a big achievement for you. :clap2:
    Oh I so love achieving things. Do you do courses where I pay you £500 to teach me to bake a cake?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Oh I so love achieving things. Do you do courses where I pay you £500 to teach me to bake a cake?
    Of course not. I charge £501(.99).

    Now stop derailing this thread; your latest idiot-fest of a thread awaits you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Of course not. I charge £501(.99).

    Now stop derailing this thread; your latest idiot-fest of a thread awaits you.
    Can I do your course. I so want to achieve something new.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    To be clear: it's not tuition fees that are being increased, it's the tuition fee cap. In reality, tuition for undergraduates at decent universities costs even more than £9 000 and the only thing that keeps it at that level is the cap. Bringing it down by any significant amount will mean that government funding for universities will either have to be increased or universities will have to cut back on spending. Since the latter is unlikely, the former is the obvious choice in that situation.

    Where does this increased funding come from? Taxation, most probably (cutting spending in other areas is hardly a popular choice). You're charging people the same one way or the other (neglecting the interest, to which I'm opposed). The only difference with the current approach is that the cost is somewhat individualised, whereas the alternative would involve taxing everyone.
    I see your point but I guess that's just the nature of the taxation system. We all have to pay tax for things we don't want/ use knowing others will do the same for us.

    For example I don't want my taxation going towards trident or the war in Syria as I feel neither are to my benefit (don't want a debate on the merits of either, you get the point) but I can't opt out. It's just taxation.

    We could take that further though with the difference between courses. For example I study law which merely requires a teacher and a room - fairly cheap. Whereas someone who does a science has a far more expensive course yet I subsidise them effectively. But I don't mind, it's just the nature of taxation- they'll probably pay for something they don't use but I do at some point. That's the beauty of taxation. We all benefit.

    And despite that, people only pay back what they can, which seems to me a fair enough system. The ones that go on to earn highly will pay back the full amount; those that don't will either pay some or none of it back and will effectively have had their education subsidised in much the same way as would have been if it was free for all in the first place. So I really don't buy into this idea that the scrapping of the maintenance grants has suddenly deprived those of poorer backgrounds of the chance to enter higher education.
    I don't see why places like Germany can offer an equally good education service for less than half the price to the students.

    It was a nice touch to help out our poorest students and give them a gentle encouragement to start uni. We shouldn't be above the idea of compassion as a society.

    [QUOTE]

    I don't think that free-for-all higher education can work in this country given our culture and class mentality. If we had a system like Finland and Sweden with a choice between academic and vocational secondary schools instead of a culture of shoehorning as many people regardless of talent into universities, I would view the idea as more credible than it is at present.
    fair point but that's something successive governments have failed to do.



    Like with flood defence cuts, legal aid cuts, healthcare pfi, etc the whole thing is typical of this governments short termism. Saving us money on the short term but costing far more both financially and otherwise in the long term. With flood defences, it costs 8 times as much to repair a flood stricken are area than to build adequate flood defences in the first place yet the coalition cut flood defence spending last year.
    • Official TSR Representative
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A motion has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, and some members of the shadow cabinet. This motion reads:

    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951), dated 29 November 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 December 2015, be annulled."

    This motion will be decided without a debate on the Statutory Instrument, following the general debate on student maintenance grants.

    The Speaker has certified that the Instrument relates exclusively to England and is within devolved legislative competence (Standing order No. 83P). Any division on this motion will be subject to double majority voting. In this case, this means that the motion will need to be passed by a majority of MPs with English constituencies, as well as a majority of MPs in the UK.Statutory Instruments are an example of delegated (or secondary) legislation is when some of an Act’s law making powers have been entrusted to responsible authorities, usually a Minister of State.

    Delegated legislation contains the detail necessary for law introduced by the Act of Parliament to function. Given the limited amount of Parliamentary time, this way of making laws is a practical solution to providing the detail a law needs without detracting from the broader concerns of Parliament.

    Statutory instruments (S.I.s) make up the bulk of delegated legislation and roughly 3500 S.I.s are issued each year. About two-thirds of S.I.s are not actively considered before Parliament and simply become law on a specified future date. S.I.s are normally drafted by the legal office of the relevant government department.
    • Official TSR Representative
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The House of Commons Library has produced a research briefing on the debate, titled Abolition of maintenance grants in England from 2016/17.

    The House of Commons Library produces research briefings which provide in-depth and impartial analysis of all major pieces of legislation, as well as many areas of policy, or cover frequently asked questions and topical issues.

    Read the research briefing
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.