News2 mins ago
Dont They Think Things Through.?
Just how would they pay for it if they got in power.?
http://
http://
Dave.
http://
http://
Dave.
Answers
Strangely (and probably contrary to what Mr Corbyn has in mind) the principle beneficiarie
22:32 Mon 10th Jul 2017
https:/
2/3rd will never be repaid anyway according to the FT .
2/3rd will never be repaid anyway according to the FT .
Strangely (and probably contrary to what Mr Corbyn has in mind) the principle beneficiaries of this particular largesse will be those more well off. Richer students don't have loans and pay their fees upfront (so they will be better off with the abolition of tuition fees). Only those that achieve a decent standard of living actually repay their loans, so they will be better off. It will make no difference to the poorer ones who don't pay them off anyway and have them written off after 30 years.
This is what Martin Lewis was saying, it doesn't matter if you borrow 20grand or 200grand unless you earn over a certain amount you will never pay more than a pittance back anyways!!
Also Labour only had to make these promises to cause disruption to the current government - he will not get it but he can disrupt!
Also Labour only had to make these promises to cause disruption to the current government - he will not get it but he can disrupt!
Depends on how it's implemented. £100 billion is a lot but if the costs are spread out over time then it isn't necessarily so bad. Perhaps the better thing to do rather than wipe out all student debt is to just adjust the repayment terms, say by writing off the loan earlier. For post-2012 students I think it's 30-35 years they have to repay (if earning over £21k), whereas for pre-2012 students it's something closer to 25 years (variable). Perhaps, rather than write off all debt, you could just realign the two schemes and have post-2012 students only paying back for 25 years. Or you change the threshold for repayment upwards, say by insisting that students only repay if you have a salary that's above the national average?
Wiping it all out in one stroke is clearly not an option. I'm not saying that the two suggestions above would work either. The second one would be my preference since it's targeted at the lower end of the income scale.
But still, as has been pointed out, much of the student loan cost is never recuperated anyway. On its own that's enough reason to look again at how loans are managed. What is the point of saddling students with such significant debts, which does have some psychological impact, if you aren't expecting them to repay the debts? Even if you still hold by the principle that students should be the ones to pay for their university education, and that's not exactly an unreasonable principle, then you should still want the current system to be looked at again. It's not really working.
Wiping it all out in one stroke is clearly not an option. I'm not saying that the two suggestions above would work either. The second one would be my preference since it's targeted at the lower end of the income scale.
But still, as has been pointed out, much of the student loan cost is never recuperated anyway. On its own that's enough reason to look again at how loans are managed. What is the point of saddling students with such significant debts, which does have some psychological impact, if you aren't expecting them to repay the debts? Even if you still hold by the principle that students should be the ones to pay for their university education, and that's not exactly an unreasonable principle, then you should still want the current system to be looked at again. It's not really working.
It was a vote winning strategy and nothing more. They should go back to the grant system and limit places to the brightest students. It's ridiculous now, everyone gets in if they want to go. Plus bring back the technical colleges to teach something worthwhile to the less academic - such as those who do media studies.
There was a somewhat related discussion about a month ago:
http://
which saves many from repeating what they said there. Thought it might add to the discussion here, anyway.
http://
which saves many from repeating what they said there. Thought it might add to the discussion here, anyway.
If it didn't help them earn enough, obviously they were an unsuitable candidate for such an investment/gamble in the first place. The public ought not be paying for students to have a couple of years or more avoiding paid employment and/or the UK unemployment figures. But now there is a loan system for all rather than a grant for the talented, it'll be difficult to return to sanity. (Especially if they manage to get kids the vote.) The emphasis should be on fixing the system not hiding the consequences.
Higher education should generate higher earners. If it isn't doing that then there is something wrong with the system.
Get rid of numpty degrees that amount to nothing more than a show of 'look what I did for three years'.
Perhaps the ones that should pay back the tuition fees are the ones who don't go into the profession that the degree is aimed at?
If 10,000 people go into say media and film degrees and don't get a job then it indicates either they weren't good enough, didn't try hard enough to get the job or there are not enough jobs in that market place to sustain 10,000 new entrants. Therefore cut back on the number of entrants.
Get rid of numpty degrees that amount to nothing more than a show of 'look what I did for three years'.
Perhaps the ones that should pay back the tuition fees are the ones who don't go into the profession that the degree is aimed at?
If 10,000 people go into say media and film degrees and don't get a job then it indicates either they weren't good enough, didn't try hard enough to get the job or there are not enough jobs in that market place to sustain 10,000 new entrants. Therefore cut back on the number of entrants.
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|