To not pay off my student loan (current SAHM) even though we can afford it?

[SwissSarah]

I got my degree 10 years ago and have about £10K to pay from my student loan. I never earned enough to pay back any of it pre kids (did low paid community work) and have been a SAHM for 5 years and plan to be for at least the next 5. I anticipate never working full time and probably doing lots of voluntary stuff in the community as that's what I love doing. (DH earns well so no pressure to earn myself)

My DH thinks we should pay it back as I borrowed it. I think that I am contributing massively to my local community and giving back in so many other ways and if I'm not earning enough then I shouldn't worry about not paying it back. What do you think??

And my point was not whether or not it's morally wrong (although I think it's debatable that legal = moral, but that's another subject).

It's people telling themselves (and others) that by not paying back the loan they're occupying the moral high ground.

mycavities he's only able to earn that money because the OP is providing him with full time childcare. Yes, on paper the salary is going into his account but in reality they've both earnt it as a partnership. It's family money, not "his" money.

He'd still earn the same money if OP worked. He'd just have higher outgoings to pay for childcare

Red, I do agree really that it is family money but the slc don't see it that way when making the higher earner pay back their individual loan. So by those standards it can't be considered family money when it comes to making repayments for a lower earning spouse.
The govt drew up those initial contracts signed by the OP and she can't be blamed for sticking to it.

Regarding the moral high ground thing, I think people are entitled to feel satisfation at depriving the govt of unfair taxation.

Personally, I consider the state is getting enough money out of my family - we get no state support with anything financial and are supporting our dc through university (which isn't optional - if we didn't pay, they couldn't go). Our kids in turn will probably pay more tax if they can get good jobs post uni. If they can't then they shouldn't be paying back loans imo.
Buggered if the state are getting me to repay my sl, if I can possibly legally not repay it.

Thanks for everyone's comments. It's made for interesting and lengthy(!) reading.

Apologies to those who have been offended by my attitude.

To come to back to a few points:

Yes my DH has paid his loan off.

Yes my loan is only repayable once I reach a certain salary and it will be written off eventually if I don't earn above he threshold.

No I didn't do a degree intending to start a family immediately. I intended to use it for my career.

It's a fair point to say I'm naive about future work plans. Yes, you're right, I may end up working full time and therefore may pay it off anyway.

I had DC1 at 28 and had DC3 6 months ago so plan to be at home until all are at school. Then I hope to work part time if possible.

I agree voluntary community work does not make up for not paying back my student loan but I hope I am contributing in ways I can (alongside bringing up 3 kids) while I am not paying back the money.

Yes I am in a vulnerable position if our relationship breaks down. Our marriage is not bulletproof but we work as a team taking different roles and responsibilities. It is a risk, but one I'm prepared to take to be at home with our kids now. We'd both be pretty screwed without each other tbh. I absolutely accept it's not for everyone.

I think that's me over and out.

He might not Trainspotting. Having the OP at home may have given him leeway to work longer hours, go abroad when required that ordinary childcare might not have facilitated.

And that may have helped him get promotions/climb the ladder.

Often one career is 'sacrificed' for another in modern marriages.

I'm in a similar situation but I've just started a part time job with a view to building up to full time. I hope to be in a position to be paying off from my salary but I won't be using family money to pay it off. Despite the break I've got a decent salary, not far off my last job before kids. I spent some time studying for another (paid for) qualification and volunteering so I may pay more tax in the long run than in my previous career. It also helped that I was younger - mid 30s - when starting again.

I suspect many of the moral objectors here have paid off their loans/never had one (my husband was supported by his parents so didn't need one)/are bitter they didn't go to uni at all. I'm another russell group uni goer, 2.1 and never really had a graduate job, but it did help set me apart no doubt.

And there is an awful lot of misinformation here - loans being paid off don't impact on the availability of loans in the future. Loans are often a way to 'create' money, not sure if this is the case for student loans but it is what banks do for mortgages.

anerdyn yes I completely agree that legally the OP is well within her rights to do what she is doing.

If people want to tell themselves they've claimed the moral high ground by not paying back money they've borrowed then I can't stop them . People tell themselves all kinds of things to justify their actions.

Personally, if I could afford to pay back the money (as the OP can), I'd only feel able to claim moral superiority if I were to take the equivalent amount and give it to charity. Then I suppose I could argue that I was making a protest against an unfair system.

Otherwise I'd just admit to what it is - keeping the extra money because I don't legally have to pay it back and I'd rather spend it on my family!

I get what you mean about the joint vs individual debt

" Often one career is 'sacrificed' for another in modern marriages"
Completely agree. And just because that sounds far too balanced id like to make the point it is usually the woman's career which is sacrificed for the man's.

I think there needs to be some retrospective twiddling with the t&c of these loans.

To have a cut-off point at which the loan is written off is unfair. Clearly this benefits those who for whatever reason (barring illness/disability) do not work or work part-time/low-paid work. For example Princess Beatrice probably will not be getting a full-time job any time soon and therefore her degree will have cost her nowt.

I think the loans should have no cut-off point, but can be called in when someone dies. If someone has a joint interest in a property (ie through marriage) then that sum should be taken into account, even if they never financially contributed to its purchase. I suppose there are always loopholes, though. People would "divorce" to evade loan collection!

Very curious to know whether the moral high horse brigade feel that OP's husband should also be paying the tax she would be liable for if she were on the average salary for her age in her graduate field, so as not to short change the exchequer.

Given the status of student loans, the principle is similar.

Usually Womans career is always expected to cease and the man continues unimpeded
Fast forward,woman no recent work experience.no means to earn own money.reliant on man
It's precarious position.take a cursory glance on mn to read about women with no money,no work exp and dodgy man to boot

Very good point jassy. She could have virtual pay rises as well and pay into a virtual work placed tea club :)

I object to paying extra for my biscuits because OP is not paying into the tea kitty.

I mean, seriously, is there a phalanx of part-time workers and SAHMs who are getting their husbands to pay the tax they'd be liable for if they were earning to their full economic potential? Their education was funded by the taxpayer, and if they did higher ed was heavily subsidised! Why aren't they putting back in so that others can benefit, if their partners can afford it?

Rhoda you can't retrospectively change terms and conditions of a contract. It would render all contracts completely meaningless. You cannot make a persons actions of greater consequence than they initially and legally signed up to, by for ex, depriving their dc of an inherirance by claiming against the estate. That is not what either party agreed to.

Imagine if everyone never earned enough to pay it back :s

That seems rather unlikely.

Imagine if everyone never earned enough to pay it back :s

Yes. Imagine if no one pursued lucrative, W
well-paid, high-status careers that require degrees.

Do you know, in that unlikely event, I'd say we might have bigger problems than the fact the student loan book wasn't balanced.

Haha at notion princess Beatrice the thoughtful-singer slasher,has a student loan
Are slc letters sent care of buck hoose

You can afford to pay back your loan, but choose not to? Yes, YABU.

Student Loans are not a tax. They have a similarity to taxes in that you pay back a percentage of your income when it exceeds a certain level. But the payments are paying off your debt and its interest, and when you have paid the loan back the payments will stop. Taxes don't work like that - you will always be hit with them as long as you are earning.

YABU. The morality of some of the posters on this thread is laughable.

Way up there with their logic, expat.

I paid off my student debt in my home country before I emigrated and I didn't have to. It was for selfish reasons though, not a sense of higher moral purpose.

Megatherium

I admit I haven't seen your accommodation. I live near a university city. The building work over the past 3-5 years that has gone on in the city to accommodate the students in designer ensuite properties is phenomenal. So much so that the shared housing, which was once in high demand is now deemed undesirable and sitting empty or sold on. This is what I was referring to and it's disgusting that students are paying such an unnecessarily heavy price tag for a room. Thus racking up massive debt, which can then be defered or never paid by people such as op.

The idea that it's a moral imperative to exceed the terms of a contract is pretty laughable expat.

Most of the parents I know who have gone PT and hobbled their own careers (have done so because they) have disabled or ill DC and a caring role. Funnily enough it still seems to be WOMEN who end up with the shit unpaid caring responsiblities and insufficient pensions.

I can't get worked up about the pampered, wealthy few who become spouse-supported ladies of leisure. I doubt they're a statistically significant proportion of SLC borrowers and as long as they are sticking to the terms of the contract, they're not actually transgressing.