to think that tuition fees will mean fewer women working full time in the future?

[darleneconnor]

Another possible long-term side effect of the changes.

For some people there will be a disincentive to work full time (and repay) when they can work part time (and not repay).

It depends on the pay band people are in, of course.

Maybe some tories people will see this as a good side-effect.

I'm sure it might be a consideration, but then I could stop working & not pay a penny of my loan back going forward but I would be a lot worse off than by working & paying it back so I'm not sure if it's really a very logical choice.

The thing that worries me is the government changing the way student debt works. They said the loan would never accrue a 'real' rate of interest - just rise with inflation. They've changed that. What else will they change when they need a bit more cash?

I'm certain tuition fees will leave women who take maternity leave (and men/women who stay at home to look after children) in a worse situation.

Say you pay back 9% of your salary over £15k (which is how it works at the moment). When you have children and/or stay at home to look after them, your repayments will be frozen, but your loan will accrue interest and undo repayments you made while in employment. Therefore, having children will prolong your period of paying back your loan - a further disincentive to degree-educated people to have children.

Labour introduced tuition fees darleneconnor, and I didnt hear you complaining then. Give the Tory bashing a rest.

I doubt anyone with the capacity to earn 20k+ will deliberately spend a lifetime below that level just to dodge paying 9%(?) over and above it.

AFAIK people did complain when tuition fees were introduced, just not as much as they are now that the fees are being trebled.

I do think it's a little early to be predicting all the long term side effects though. There are too many arguments either way, and a lot will depend on other circumstances.

It's 9% of what you earn over the threshold, not 9% of everything once you hit the threshold like stamp duty. So if you earn more you get more money. I doubt anyone will deliberately restrict their earnings to avoid paying it back, that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why women?

Laquitar - I think it could be men and women but the OP mentions women as they are more likely to take mat. and career breaks to look after children. There will be an incentive to work PT or be a SAHM for longer if it means that the debt will expire. they are also (unfortunately) likely to be in lower paid jobs below the payment threshold or at the lower end.

I'm part of the generation who first took student loans out post grants being frozen. Already, I know of some women with kids who will not pay theire loan back. I struggle to see how this scheme will be workable tbh.

Thanks lozster.

It was the thin end of the wedge TottWriter, and people should have been up in arms if it meant anything to them. Oddly enough the hardcore left were pretty much silent.

Now had the Tories introduced fees, what do you think the reaction would have been?

Very sexist to assume women look after children though. I took 2 weeks holiday for my babies then went back full time. It's very workable, much more fun and you don't have lost income issues afterwards.

What it might do is ensure silly women who pick basket weaving degress might pick something which is likely to mean they can fund a family instead such as becoming a leading surgeon etc. So it might ensure they don't make foolish degree choices and ensure they don't pick careers which mean they cannot adequately support their families.

It's not an assumption that women will look after children, it's a statement based on currents stats. of women who work pt or are sahm. It's in no way an endorsement of females being presumed to be the default carer.

Good and I would say every woman has a dutty to try to ensure it is not muggins her who ends up with domestic toil, no pay and dross hours of childcare duties but foists it on to Mr Husband or at least ensures she isn't the one sacrificing her career. If she knows she will be wanting to help her children pay for their university edcuation that might also get these women out of kitchens and working their way up to the top so that the cabinet end up 80% female and most boards women outnumber men. As long as o many women so keenly however pick up their mops and dusters that will never happen.

But that's only b ecause your eyes have not been opened to how oppressed you are surely. Gather hither and I shall disillusion you. The scales will lift from your eyes perhaps... or perhaps not.. laughing as I type. What a coincidece that it's always the women tied to the kitchens who "like" being at home

Xenia- I got sacked 'made redundant' when I got pregnant. It wasn't my choice to leave the labour market. For some people biology is destiny.

True and I got hired when 5 months pregnant with 2 children under 4 because I thought I was one at the best at what I do. I still think that. I also later worked for myself. Being sacked can often be a way for women to double their income because they then set up in business and keep 100% of the profit.

That's already the case. My student loans date from 1994=1997 and I work p/t as if I went f/t I'd be paying them back and be worse off.

Check the stats.. did it happen when labour introduced them?

I can't see how the increased loans are going to really work - the government funding to unis is being slashed, so this isn't extra money, it's money that is really desperately needed, but the terms of the loans mean that a large proportion of them will never be paid off, where will the money come from to plug the gap?

I am doubtful that I will ever get to the bottom of my student loan, although I have never stopped working (went back when DD was 5 weeks) I work in an industry where everyone is expected to live on air even during the boom years, and now most of my current employers are about to loose 100% of their funding at the same time as I am about to have DC2...
I do run my own business, pt alongside my freelance work, but it's unlikely to suddenly take off hugely.

I was looking forward to go to Uni to do nursing, needless to say it wont be happening now, i can't afford it AT ALL.

Makes me wonder if its worth bothering with collage.

I thought the opposite - that I would have gone back full time or as you end up paying less overall if its paid back quicker.

But thats because my part-time salary is above the threshold.

Tinselina I really don't thin you have to pay tuition fees for nursing, certainly don't at the moment.

My loan is so old that it's interest free, so I won't end up having to pay more if I pay it back later. Plus I heard from several people that after 20 years they write the loan off. Not sure how true that is.

isn't the OP like saying that tax makes people not want big salaries because it means more tax?
that doesn't happen in practice does it?

Tinselina, when you say you can't afford it, what EXACTLY do you mean? do you mean you don't have spare cash to pay upfront (which you don't have to do) or do you mean that you don't think you can live on a nurses salary with the repayments?
if the latter, do you know what they repayment increments are?