howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#2
That's 1% will get lucrative salaries and 99% will be disappointed!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#3
They won't have to start paying them off till they're earning good money, so they don't have to worry.
Roger
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#4
Roger, that comment shows you are out of touch completely!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#5
My understanding Ray, is that they don't have to start paying back until they're earning above £21,000 pa, and only builds to a larger repayment as their salary grows - is that not true ?
All the time the debate and arguments were going on about it, that was the main point being put across - that they don't start paying back until they are earning good money (not that £21,000 is very good money, but the payments will be low then.
Monthly payments
9 per cent of your income over the threshold of £21,000 a year.
For example, your course starts in September 2012 and you finish in June 2015. In September 2015 you're earning £25,000. This is £4,000 over the £21,000 threshold. You pay 9% of £4,000 which is £360. This means from April 2016 you pay back £30 per month.
Your income per year Monthly repayments
£21,000 and under no repayments
£25,000 £30
£30,000 £67.50
£40,000 £142.50
£50,000 £217.50
£60,000 £292.50
Please advise if the above is wrong Ray.
Roger
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#6
Yes they are the figures put out Roger. Figures that show this student tax for what it is. They also paint a very sad picture when it comes to providing opportunities within our area.
I think that many people would be happy with £30k a year - so they 'only' have to pay back £67.50 a month. After 3 years of 9k tuition fees, and an overpriced room in a shared student house, not forgetting food and bills - these students might be lucky to pay their loans by the time they are 70.
Anybody got any ideas what this might mean for the locality long term?
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
#7
As someone who is 'chucking it in' and going to uni for 3 years at the age of 45, yes, I would agree with Roger's figures. The was it was explained to me at Kent was just as he says.
At least I will be long gone from the planet before I ever pay it all back ! Bargain !
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#8
Roger, your figures aren't wrong, it's your interpretation of the effect they are having on the views of young people thinking of taking a degree that are wrong - and these are the ones the future prosperity of the nation will be relying on.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
What interpretation did I put Ray ?
Young people thinking of going to Uni. are being put off by scare-mongering about paying the loan off when they are on low money and that isn't the case -as we can see.
Good Luck Jeff
Roger
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
#10
Thanks Roger.
So if when I finish I end up earning say, £36K (use this as an example as it's the most I've ever earnt at a job), I would be paying back £87.50 per month. This would be taken at source making my gross £34,950. I think the point of it being taken at source like PAYE means I would just consider that I earnt less... When I had the job earning that I was paying tax on a company Golf GTI and a company phone and I managed very well.
Maybe this is oversimplified, but at 45 the prospect of having to pay it back does not give me restless nights.
Does this make sense ?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Best thought of as an additional tax band starting at £21,000 for those who went to Uni.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#12
That's a terrific way to promote getting educated Barry - go to university and pay more tax
This is all a result of Tony Blair's ridiculous idea that 50% of people leaving school should got to university, in spite of nowhere near 50% of school-leavers being educated to a level where they can benefit from a university education (I've known students in their final year of a degree who couldn't work out 10% of a value) and nowhere near 50% of jobs needing a degree.
Good luck to you Jeff, I'm sure you're mature enough to have a made a serious assesment of the costs and benefits, I just don't think it's the same situation for a school leaver who has never had a job before.
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
#13
Hi Ray.
Yes, I guess age plays a part too. After 25 years in the motor trade, it's time I did something for ME ! Suicide was the next best choice ! (Said in jest, of course.)
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#14
Yes good luck Jeff
You are also a shining example that going onto further education is not about just getting a better paid job, it is so much more - something this tax fails to value.
Barry, another way of looking at this is:
A tax for those going to uni that do not come from rich backgrounds.
So much for social mobility, individualism and fewer taxes...or less taxes!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#15
DT1 - totally disagree, it is nothing to do with someone's background. I know many a parent who is using their meagre savings to clear a large chunk, if not all, of Uni debt for their children. One just recently, incidentally, who is a nurse in the NHS. I do not think she should do it and advised against but she insists. It all depends on someone's motivation and choices in life.
Taxes are essentially a bad thing, specially levied on income and should always be minimised.
Better to get secondary level education right and send far fewer to Uni which is not to take away good secondary schools such as a particular one your and I are involved with. As a society we need less emphasis on pieces of paper when employing people.
Yes - good luck Jeff
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#16
Jeff - an enterprising decision, as you say, doing something you want to do ! Good luck.
What will you be studying?
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#17
To an extent Barry is correct in his second sentence - for far too long education has been a political football to the detriment not only of students and those who work in education, but also the country. We need to get back to delivering high quality secondary and tertiary education that is fitted to both the needs of the individual and that of the country. This should include a reversion to the polytechnic/trade school of many of the new Universities, with them offering vocationally oriented qualifications at various levels in close conjunction with trade bodies and trade education authorities.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#18
Agreed, Ross and Barry.
...except for the idea that background has nothing to do with it.
The amount of people I went to university with who weren't very 'good' but had lots of money, far outweighed those with accumulating debt but huge amounts of talent (not suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive). I would controversially suggest that it is easier to get good exam results in a class of 7 than it is in a class of 30 and that if this can be afforded then another 3 years makes little difference to ones bank account/pension etc.
You are right, some people should not bother going to university, but the process is fast becoming merely a financial choice and not one of meritocratic suitability (the essence of individualism).
I never ever promote Mrs Thatcher but my further education is one thing I am grateful to her for (I found that hard to type) the ideology adds up! If we are to promote social mobility we should not be implementing many of the decisions made by our current government.
The 'bits of paper' you mention are the very same by which schools are measured, closed and taken over by people interested in making money, not educating. Let's be very clear Mr Gove is doing NOTHING to make secondary education any better, merely using it as the football Ross mentions. I suppose at least with football he is promoting the legacy of the olympics....now if only he hadn't told schools to sell their playing fields....another U-Turn required?
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#19
Ps. If my son or daughter was training to be an NHS nurse, I'd throw as much money at them as I could and be very proud.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
Got to disagree about Gove DT1. There is much he has said I do disagree with but with 'free schools' and freeing others from local authorities he is broadening choice though there is more he can do to further that. Choice and parental demand is what will improve education loosening the grip of the academic educationalists who has so undermined it for decades. He is also right to bring in more rigorous exams, dropping GCSEs in favour of O Level style examinations.
The best way to promote social mobility is for more selection and a greater availability of non-academic schools (but not 'double selection' DT!!...). But - we do need those basics of good English and Maths to be instilled even in the non-academic.
