to feel sad that 3yo dd might never be able to achieve her potential due to tuition fees?

[bytheMoonlight]

I look at dd, who is due to start nursery in January and wonder what is going to happen if one day she decides she wants a career that means going to university.

I feel so upset that her chances are being blighted before she has even entered education. We could offer her little financial support and the thought of her leaving with all that debt is beyond comprehension and would not qualify for help.

I feel so sad about this.

peppa - because the amount of fees you had to pay were so much lower. you might have found it OK, but for future students the debt is going to be around 20k more than yours.

thecoalition - you have lost me. I don't understand how payments are going to be less if fees and therefore the level debt goes up?

Yes you are actually presuming she will want to go. Perhaps she will want to be a plumber then you can stop worrying. And have your dripping tap fixed

With 43% now going to university there is just no going back to the means-tested grants and I know enough people in academia to know that there is a genuine crises wrt maintaining standards and resources.

I hate students having to pay fees but I cannot see any way out - except perhaps to move toward the US system of more bursaries and working students.

I'm completely with peppapig here. The debt is not so onerous that it should deter anyone from going to university. I don't worry about dd going and would be horrified if she started moaning about the debt. (We may not be able to help her at all, as we are keen for dh to take early retirement and have no savings.)

My dad grew up in Philadelphia in the 1960's. His parents were unskilled labourers who had immigrated from Italy. They spoke very little English and both dropped out of school to work when they were about 8. My grandmother could only sign her name with an x.

My dad (their son) worked 3 jobs whilst going to university and paid his way through a degree in business and degree in economics and a master degree in finance without any help. He went to very upscale universities. He worked worked worked and didn't expect the government to help him. He paid for it all himself (and uni over there is a lot more expensive). And he didn't contract a lot of debt because he was responsible with his money. He cleaned toilets, hauled boxes, worked as a cashier, a grave digger and fixed stuff for people etc etc while he was studyinging for his degrees at upscale schools.

He just retired a millionaire. Though he did work a lot of 70 hour weeks. His view is that if he had grown up in a socialist country where everyone expects the government to provide he would have never got out of the ghetto. There would have been no point in trying.

And you want to see people like him have everything he worked for taxed away because your dc thinks that the government should pay her way?

Right.

dreamingofsun - because
a) the limit at which you start paying back is going up
b) Payment is proportional to income not debt.
c) Payment is based on income OVER the threshold only.

Less than £5k for a BSc Hons in Psychology from the Open University. Bargain.

Dreamingofsun. Do you understand how they are paid back? This is the argument thecoalition and I are putting forward.

It doesnt matter the level of the debt - you pay the same amount back each month. If your debt is 10k or 100k the amount paid back each month is no different.

The threshold for paying them back will be at least 21k. Therefore is you earn 21k or less you will pay nothing back. If your salary level is 40k but you work 2.5 days a week you will still pay nothing back.

Over and above 21k you pay back 9% of your salary. So if you earn 30k a year you will pay back about £65 a month. Not bad when your overall take home salary will be around £1800 ish.

If you take 10 years out to stay at home with the kids you will pay nothing back during those 10 years. Say you then go back 3 days a week and have a job which pays 40k a year but pro rata you get £24k a year you would only pay back £20 a month.

It doesnt matter if your loan is 10k or 100k you still pay back at this level.

What it does mean is that if you only earn 24k a year then effectively you will be paying back that £20 a month until you retire when it is then wiped out. Those earning a salary of around 25 - 40k will probably end up paying back an overall higher amount than those earning more which doesnt seem fair but they will still have overall more take home pay than someone in an unskilled job.

YANBU - I have set up an education fund for my DS and made the decision not to send him to public school (unless I win the lottery). I am incredibly lucky that there are some very good state schools near us. His father's pathetic contributions CSA payments go stright into an account that I add to whenever I am feeling flush. I have 3 siblings either heading into, attending or just about to graduate from Uni and the financial strain has been horrendous.

I object strongly to the high level of university fees, and I am grateful that I did my degrees when not only was it free but I got a full grand.

But I genuinely don't understand why anybody would not be able to go to university because of the fees.

This is monthly payments against salary under the old and new systems.

Salary Current New
£10,000 £0 £0
£15,000 £0 £0
£20,000 £38 £0
£25,000 £75 £30
£30,000 £113 £68
£35,000 £150 £105
£40,000 £188 £143
£45,000 £225 £180
£50,000 £263 £218
£55,000 £300 £255
£60,000 £338 £293
£65,000 £375 £330
£70,000 £413 £368
£75,000 £450 £405
£80,000 £488 £443
£85,000 £525 £480
£90,000 £563 £518
£95,000 £600 £555

Source: Me fiddling about in Excel

So take the hypothetical situation that perhaps if your daughter went to university she could have a salary of 40k. If she didnt perhaps she would only earn 30k.

In the university situation she earns 10k a year more but pays back around £1750 a year in student loan.

She is still better off in the university situation?

The argument would come that perhaps she could earn the same salary by not going to university...well dont go then

Move to Scotland
that's my plan

BUT it has been worth it! The good thing to come out of the fees is that people with think about University far more seriously rather than just toddle off for 3 years of drinking to avoid getting a proper job

seeker - yes the succinctly brings together the point I am trying to make

Coalition - do you know if the new situation will apply to old students? So the ones who currently have a student loan - will they continue to have a threshold of 16k or will it rise for everyone?

Asteria - to be fair I also think that some people could still go to university, spend 3 years drinking and never pay anything back. They could get a job under 21K or work part time and not have to do anything.

I have a few SAHM friends who never plan to go back to work or work more than part time. They won't pay anything back at all as they will not earn over the threshold. Saying that they paid their tuition fees up front under the older system but will not pay their maintenance grant back so effectively tax payers paid for their alcohol...

Won't stop the mickey mouse degrees as if they are truly useless then that person wont earn a lot? Or if they do the course was not mickey mouse?

Okay, so '£140 under the current system would be £95 under the new system'. But for how much longer will that debt be hanging around the graduate's neck? And won't interest be building up while the debt remains unpaid if it takes a few years to reach that £21k threshold? I'd love to be told this is a misconception and the amount will be frozen. Supporters of the rise in fees, please tell me that's what happens.

Hallelujah - at last some sensible posts on this. Ds is due to go if he wants in 2014, but I have pointed out that it is cheaper to do a degree in Europe (and some places teach in English), and that if he wants to study in the UK, he needs to think long and hard about what he wants to study and what he wants to do with it.

As I've said on other threads, once the idea of fees was initially accepted, it was only and question of when the fees would rise and by how much. Now we know.

Brecon - You are right, interest will accrue and it will take longer to pay off the debt. That is how the Government plans to get back 70% of the money - the other 30% will be written off as it will still be owing when people retire.

Unlike other debt that is proportional to the loan as opposed to income, this doesn't 'hurt' as much. It just means you get less of each pay rise/pay cuts don't effect your take home as much.

It's not like a car loan or a mortgage or child care where your disposable income is reduced by paying it.

I am not a supporter by any level - just saying it should not stop anyone from going to university.

Yes it will be around for longer. Some people will pay them back until they retire. BUT they should still have more money each month than someone without a degree. See my example above.

Hanging around the students neck ... well kind of, kind of not. It is not like any other kind of loan - it does not affect mortgage applications and it does not need to be paid back unless you are working. Nobody I know loses sleep about it or even really counts it as a debt.

If you lose your job you dont pay it back. If your salary drops you pay less or quite likely dont pay it back.

As I understand it a university fee debt does not in any way impact your credit rating and is cancelled on retirement (or pension)?

So why does it matter that there is a debt there? It isn't going to have any real impact unless you are making a lot of money and therefore paying it back at a higher amount.

I just can't get my head around the issue TBH.

I would question how much is paid back actually.

Say you earn 30k a year, for 35 years, you would pay back £28,000 a year overall and then it would be cancelled when you retire.

If you earned more you would pay it back quicker and therefore pay less perhaps. 40k a year for 35 years would be £68,000 you would technically pay back....so you would presumably have paid it off within 20 years or something?

I dont know - too complicated for me to work out. However I dont think anyone accept a very small bracket of people would be affected by interest continually being added in reality.

The person paying back £20 a month would be paying less money back than they are accumulating in interest. However they would only pay back £10,000 overall before they retired?

It is not as bad as it sounds. Just means they will get more out of the higher earners I think.

lovethechaos - i don't agree with high tax either. But as a country i think we need to decide what should/shouldn't be provided. Personally i always thought education was something that should come out of taxation. If this is excluded, why shouldn't other things that we've always taken for granted, eg healthcare

Coalition - surely you just pay for longer if you pay less each month. this means that you actually end up paying more as you will be charged more interest. If as you say you earn 40k working 2 days a week, then you are over the 21k threshold do you would have to pay some money toward the debt - thats the way i understand it. am i wrong?

peppa - i agree with your logic about not bothering to get a degree. never thought i would think about suggesting this to my children. serve this country right when it has few graduates and all the ones it does have are toffs or welsh or scottish (nothing wrong with the latter 2 - married 1)

I don't think YABU. 'If we tolerate this then your children will be next'. That was the cry of the students when fees were first introduced at £1,000 a few years ago! No-one took any notice of them.

Look on the bright side, take comfort in the fact that people won't forget this betrayal and the other proposals which affect everybody in the end, from the most vulnerable through to the reasonably comfortably well off. Your DC's might have the pleasure of growing up under a decent, caring government in 5 yrs time and beyond, who will change the way universities are funded and society distributes it's wealth.

Our family were lucky to have brought up a DC, for the most part under a labour government.

OK, so I hold my hands up and admit I hadn't really looked into this, I have just been watching news items.

This thread has been an eye opener and lessened my worries.

dreamingofsun, I agree that taxes should provide for healthcare and education, but they do. They pay for free education to the age of 16/18 (depending on what you do), and for the NHS. What they don't pay for, is any private medical treatment, and education for adults who are earning enough to be able to pay for it themselves. I don't feel this is morally wrong.

D