BBC: Alan Bennett warns over tuition fees
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16110...
Why do people not understand how the student loan system works?!
Why do people not understand how the student loan system works?!
It's a government test - if you're too thick to understand you don't pay now and you only ever pay if you earn sufficiently, then you're probably too thick to go to university.
Clearly Mr Bennett believes that his education, that at least contributed to his success, shouldn't be paid for by him. Far better for his postman, his nurse and his butcher to all contibute a bit of tax every year than for him to give a bit back.
Clearly Mr Bennett believes that his education, that at least contributed to his success, shouldn't be paid for by him. Far better for his postman, his nurse and his butcher to all contibute a bit of tax every year than for him to give a bit back.
Bennett clearly doesn't.
I think the great thing about the new system is that it weeds out those too stupid to realise nothing is paid out up front.
It's a cheap loan for quite possibly the most valuable thing you can *buy* yourself. People don't want to pay, for example, £20k for something that (unless doing a mickey mouse course or just bumming around for a few years) is more valuable than that paid for it. Yet they'll think nothing of getting a high loan/finance on a £20k car or some holidays when they do eventually start work. Misplaced priorities or what!
And to top it off, if you don't end up with a decently paid job then you don't pay anything back.
Yes it would be great, if like in the old days, if we all paid nothing but that was in the days when only a minority of people went to uni. Now we want 50%+ and that has to be paid for.
I think the great thing about the new system is that it weeds out those too stupid to realise nothing is paid out up front.
It's a cheap loan for quite possibly the most valuable thing you can *buy* yourself. People don't want to pay, for example, £20k for something that (unless doing a mickey mouse course or just bumming around for a few years) is more valuable than that paid for it. Yet they'll think nothing of getting a high loan/finance on a £20k car or some holidays when they do eventually start work. Misplaced priorities or what!
And to top it off, if you don't end up with a decently paid job then you don't pay anything back.
Yes it would be great, if like in the old days, if we all paid nothing but that was in the days when only a minority of people went to uni. Now we want 50%+ and that has to be paid for.
Dracoro said:
Bennett clearly doesn't.
I think the great thing about the new system is that it weeds out those too stupid to realise nothing is paid out up front.
It's a cheap loan for quite possibly the most valuable thing you can *buy* yourself. People don't want to pay, for example, £20k for something that (unless doing a mickey mouse course or just bumming around for a few years) is more valuable than that paid for it. Yet they'll think nothing of getting a high loan/finance on a £20k car or some holidays when they do eventually start work. Misplaced priorities or what!
And to top it off, if you don't end up with a decently paid job then you don't pay anything back.
You start paying at 21,000. Average wage is 25,000 so most graduates will be paying it back on quite modest income. The 21,000 will soon be exceeded due to normal wage inflation even if the graduate has a really rubbish job.I think the great thing about the new system is that it weeds out those too stupid to realise nothing is paid out up front.
It's a cheap loan for quite possibly the most valuable thing you can *buy* yourself. People don't want to pay, for example, £20k for something that (unless doing a mickey mouse course or just bumming around for a few years) is more valuable than that paid for it. Yet they'll think nothing of getting a high loan/finance on a £20k car or some holidays when they do eventually start work. Misplaced priorities or what!
And to top it off, if you don't end up with a decently paid job then you don't pay anything back.
And guess what ? While you aren't paying the loan off you are still being charged interest on it at CPI+3%. Have a lowly paid job for 5 years and you owe almost 50% more.
With 9% taken from your wages and a loan just for fees, that means you don't start to repay the capital till you earn around 35,000. So effectively you will be taxed at an extra 9% for the full 30 years
If a bank lent you money on a car you could never sell, with repayments that went up with inflation, that you were locked into for 30 years, very few people would be claiming what a fantastic deal it was. Even these mythical graduates who buy 20k cars.
Caulkhead said:
Clearly Mr Bennett believes that his education, that at least contributed to his success, shouldn't be paid for by him. Far better for his postman, his nurse and his butcher to all contibute a bit of tax every year than for him to give a bit back.
He donated his archive to Oxford as a way of paying back his "tuition fees".Morningside said:
Dated:10 December 2011. Strange? Why was that not dated in the late 1990s when his Labour luvvies introduced it!
Hardly screaming from the rooftops then was he?
Not screaming from the rooftops but he's been against them since the start.Hardly screaming from the rooftops then was he?
Please don't post rubbish about people about whom you apparently have no idea.
shauniebabes said:
If a bank lent you money on a car you could never sell, with repayments that went up with inflation, that you were locked into for 30 years, very few people would be claiming what a fantastic deal it was. Even these mythical graduates who buy 20k cars.
If the car meant I could earn more money (e.g. by going to work) then that would still be a good deal, wouldn't it? And if I didn't earn more money, or stopped earning altogether, I wouldn't need to pay anything at all, but would still have the car. Again, not too bad really.I'll point out that as a group graduates already pay enough in extra income tax alone (compared to non-graduates) to more than cover the cost of their tuition.
Now it seems that people (normally non-graduates) want graduates to pay for their education twice: once at the point of use via student loans and again in additional income tax that their education earns them over their lifetime.
Just another case of "politics of envy" in my opinion.
Now it seems that people (normally non-graduates) want graduates to pay for their education twice: once at the point of use via student loans and again in additional income tax that their education earns them over their lifetime.
Just another case of "politics of envy" in my opinion.
youngsyr said:
I'll point out that as a group graduates already pay enough in extra income tax alone (compared to non-graduates) to more than cover the cost of their tuition.
Now it seems that people (normally non-graduates) want graduates to pay for their education twice: once at the point of use via student loans and again in additional income tax that their education earns them over their lifetime.
Just another case of "politics of envy" in my opinion.
Problem is that works both ways, I don't have a degree, but pay higher taxes, can I have some of it back as its paying for an education I didn't receive? No, because it was my choice not to go to uni, just as it is the choice of all those about to start under the new "rules". If you dont like the new system the answer is simple don't go to Uni.Now it seems that people (normally non-graduates) want graduates to pay for their education twice: once at the point of use via student loans and again in additional income tax that their education earns them over their lifetime.
Just another case of "politics of envy" in my opinion.
KrazyIvan said:
youngsyr said:
I'll point out that as a group graduates already pay enough in extra income tax alone (compared to non-graduates) to more than cover the cost of their tuition.
Now it seems that people (normally non-graduates) want graduates to pay for their education twice: once at the point of use via student loans and again in additional income tax that their education earns them over their lifetime.
Just another case of "politics of envy" in my opinion.
Problem is that works both ways, I don't have a degree, but pay higher taxes, can I have some of it back as its paying for an education I didn't receive? No, because it was my choice not to go to uni, just as it is the choice of all those about to start under the new "rules". If you dont like the new system the answer is simple don't go to Uni.Now it seems that people (normally non-graduates) want graduates to pay for their education twice: once at the point of use via student loans and again in additional income tax that their education earns them over their lifetime.
Just another case of "politics of envy" in my opinion.
well the reason is simple. For every person like you there are hundreds more who don't get a well paid job or aren't in a position to turn their natural skills into money.
University is designed to turn intelligence into productive memebers of society, specialists in their field and most importantly people who will benefit us all, financially or in our well being.
I wonder if you would be so happy to find someone who was genuinely interested in medicine, a natural at surgery, working as an accounting clarke at 35 because at 19 he wasn't sure he would earn enough in medicine to raise a family until he was 35, because he owed 7 years tuition fees? this could have been someone who could have saved your child's life, or your own.
University may not be for everybody but you should make it accessible for the people who should be able to go there and not actually put barriers up to their entry.
I think you know when you've lost the argument when you have to resort to "won't someone please think about the children" 
My wife is a doctor and wasn't from a wealthy background, had to work loads and ended up with a large amount to pay back after it all. This didn't put her off and I doubt it would put off any others seriously thinking about medicine (or many other careers for that matter).
That 19 year old accountancy clerk (clarke you didn't do an English degree did you ) is earning a lot less so more fool him. Actually using doctors as an example is very poor as they'll earn a fair bit more over their career. If you're clever enough to be able to train to be a doctor, you're clever enough to work out that financially you'll do OK!
Anyway, it's not even worth discussing, for the majority, it will make financial sense to go to uni if they are destined for a professional career.
As for my £20k car example above, I think there's been a misinterpretation. I'm not saying graduates do/will buy £20k cars straight off, just that many people do without too much worry yet they object to contributing to something far more valuable.
My wife is a doctor and wasn't from a wealthy background, had to work loads and ended up with a large amount to pay back after it all. This didn't put her off and I doubt it would put off any others seriously thinking about medicine (or many other careers for that matter).
That 19 year old accountancy clerk (clarke
you didn't do an English degree did you ) is earning a lot less so more fool him. Actually using doctors as an example is very poor as they'll earn a fair bit more over their career. If you're clever enough to be able to train to be a doctor, you're clever enough to work out that financially you'll do OK!Anyway, it's not even worth discussing, for the majority, it will make financial sense to go to uni if they are destined for a professional career.
As for my £20k car example above, I think there's been a misinterpretation. I'm not saying graduates do/will buy £20k cars straight off, just that many people do without too much worry yet they object to contributing to something far more valuable.
Dracoro said:
As for my £20k car example above, I think there's been a misinterpretation. I'm not saying graduates do/will buy £20k cars straight off, just that many people do without too much worry yet they object to contributing to something far more valuable.
Ignoring academic suitability: the people whose parents buy £20K+ cars with finance will still go to university and not see a problem with being in debt, as that is normal to them. Those people who have parents who do not see debt of this sort as normal will be less likely to attend university. Admittedly the second group are probably dwindling in number, but I think this whole scheme may result in a restriction on social mobility.Caulkhead said:
Then he should've donated it to the exchequer instead as the exchequer paid Oxford to educate him and Oxford also get to keep his archive. Win-win for Oxford, lose-lose for the taxpayer.
He did it partly to highlight his dislike of tuition fees. I suspect he's paid enough tax over his life to cover his education.Dracoro said:
I think you know when you've lost the argument when you have to resort to "won't someone please think about the children"
My wife is a doctor and wasn't from a wealthy background, had to work loads and ended up with a large amount to pay back after it all. This didn't put her off and I doubt it would put off any others seriously thinking about medicine (or many other careers for that matter).
That 19 year old accountancy clerk (clarke you didn't do an English degree did you ) is earning a lot less so more fool him. Actually using doctors as an example is very poor as they'll earn a fair bit more over their career. If you're clever enough to be able to train to be a doctor, you're clever enough to work out that financially you'll do OK!
Anyway, it's not even worth discussing, for the majority, it will make financial sense to go to uni if they are destined for a professional career.
As for my £20k car example above, I think there's been a misinterpretation. I'm not saying graduates do/will buy £20k cars straight off, just that many people do without too much worry yet they object to contributing to something far more valuable.
I am not a great typist. and the white screen is something I don't see my mistakes on very easily.My wife is a doctor and wasn't from a wealthy background, had to work loads and ended up with a large amount to pay back after it all. This didn't put her off and I doubt it would put off any others seriously thinking about medicine (or many other careers for that matter).
That 19 year old accountancy clerk (clarke
you didn't do an English degree did you ) is earning a lot less so more fool him. Actually using doctors as an example is very poor as they'll earn a fair bit more over their career. If you're clever enough to be able to train to be a doctor, you're clever enough to work out that financially you'll do OK!Anyway, it's not even worth discussing, for the majority, it will make financial sense to go to uni if they are destined for a professional career.
As for my £20k car example above, I think there's been a misinterpretation. I'm not saying graduates do/will buy £20k cars straight off, just that many people do without too much worry yet they object to contributing to something far more valuable.
the clerk is definitely earning less, that was my point. The doctor, you don't like that? I used it because its a 7 year course. More cost. And my point is very much that there will be people that will look at the debt but with little idea of the overall earnings potential and wonder if it is something that they will ever earn enough to pay off.
It is very easy with hindsight to say you should have done something, very different to make that decision based upon assumptions when you are 18, or more likely 16.
Most people who will turn down the opportunity to go to university for the reason of cost will do so through ignorance of the potential, usually because no-one in their family has ever been to university before them.
I believe that a government's responsibility is to improve the nation it governs. If that means paying for people to get a "free" education I think that is better than simply paying more than £36000 over the lifetime of some council estate mother of three with no job.
Mikeyboy said:
Please don't join this debate with this style of argument.
Why, because it does not support your line of thinking. As for your example, then that would be down to them, I highly doubt the new tuition fees will really effect medical course such as you mentioned so its kind of a none starter where this debate is concerned.I will say it again, the argument that graduates tend to pay a higher rate of tax and therefore should not have to pay uni fee's is negated by the fact there are are plenty of people (god how many tube drivers are likely to have a degree) who like me didn't go to Uni, but wouldn't and shouldn't get any kind of tax rebate at the higher rate of tax to account for this. So if you want to justify free uni places to all you'll need to do better than the TAX reason.
KrazyIvan said:
Why, because it does not support your line of thinking. As for your example, then that would be down to them, I highly doubt the new tuition fees will really effect medical course such as you mentioned so its kind of a none starter where this debate is concerned.
I will say it again, the argument that graduates tend to pay a higher rate of tax and therefore should not have to pay uni fee's is negated by the fact there are are plenty of people (god how many tube drivers are likely to have a degree) who like me didn't go to Uni, but wouldn't and shouldn't get any kind of tax rebate at the higher rate of tax to account for this. So if you want to justify free uni places to all you'll need to do better than the TAX reason.
I didn't say anything about tax. that was somoene else.I will say it again, the argument that graduates tend to pay a higher rate of tax and therefore should not have to pay uni fee's is negated by the fact there are are plenty of people (god how many tube drivers are likely to have a degree) who like me didn't go to Uni, but wouldn't and shouldn't get any kind of tax rebate at the higher rate of tax to account for this. So if you want to justify free uni places to all you'll need to do better than the TAX reason.
I am saying that for every person who has done well not having a degree there are many more who haven't.
A grown up society is one where people recognise the benefits to all of higher education available for all. A "well, I didn't need it" argument is short sighted and not looking at the rather obvious facts that most progress in the world is done by people with degrees and not all of them are paid fortunes.
I think what has happened is that people have conflated the labour lunacy of wanting 50% of school leavers to get a uni place with providing a free Uni place to all of those who will potentially go on to benefit society through their education.
Mikeyboy said:
the clerk is definitely earning less, that was my point. The doctor, you don't like that? I used it because its a 7 year course. More cost. And my point is very much that there will be people that will look at the debt but with little idea of the overall earnings potential and wonder if it is something that they will ever earn enough to pay off.
You don't think anyone considering medicine won't think "hmm, I wonder if it's well paid enough to pay off this loan"? Everyone knows it's a rather well paid profession especially once you've done a few years. Very well paid once you get to be a GP or consultant.As for the rest thinking a little more about whether it's really worth it, this is a good thing. It will encourage youngsters to think a little more about what they want to do rather than just signing up for any old course because "someone" wanted 50% to go to uni.
Mikeyboy said:
I believe that a government's responsibility is to improve the nation it governs. If that means paying for people to get a "free" education I think that is better than simply paying more than £36000 over the lifetime of some council estate mother of three with no job.
There isn't the money (especially with 50% wanting to go to uni). Even if you stopped paying council estate mothers, there still isn't the money. You could possibly have a "free" (which isn't free, it has to be paid by *someone*, the govt. doesn't have it's *own* money, it has the taxpayers money) but you'd need to drastically cut student numbers to afford it (halving it at least IMO). Sure, it'd be great if we could afford it but we can't (and yes, there's lots of other expenditure that we could do with saving/cutting too, that's another debate!).
Mikeyboy said:
I think what has happened is that people have conflated the labour lunacy of wanting 50% of school leavers to get a uni place with providing a free Uni place to all of those who will potentially go on to benefit society through their education.
It's hard to have both "free education for all" and then be surprised that we end up with a lot more graduates who have done non-degrees, incurred massive debts and will have added little to their prospects, as the "value" of a degree decreases if everyone had one.What is the solution? Only have "free" degrees for some subjects? What about professions that don't require a vocational degree? What about people who leave the UK and never "pay back" their "free" degree?
I think we largely agree on the principles, but it is the execution I'm not sure about. The previous position was not tenable, and who knows what the impact will be of the new fees proposal. Maybe fewer, but better quality, graduates who strive to make the most of their degrees?
will_ said:
If the car meant I could earn more money (e.g. by going to work) then that would still be a good deal, wouldn't it? And if I didn't earn more money, or stopped earning altogether, I wouldn't need to pay anything at all, but would still have the car. Again, not too bad really.
The chances of someone not earning 21,000 within 30 years are fairly remote. At which point they would actually owe far more than someone who earned over 21,000 in the first place.After one year, 27,000 loan, current CPI. 9% paid back from income
under 21000 you owe 29160
at 21000 you owe 28,600
at 25,000 owe 28250
The capital doesn't go down till you earn 39,000
You need a really good graduate job to even think about paying off the loan within 30 years.
By pegging the interest to inflation and repayments to income the effective amount you pay never decreases. Its like spending 40% of your income on a mortgage, then 20 years later you are still paying 40% of your income on the same mortgage and still owe the original capital.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff