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??

So why get a degree (that costs money), not work, have kids, fanny about with voluntary work, and not pay what that degree cost? (and still not work). Oh the life of some people!!!

It doesn't matter whether people 'use' their degrees or not. It is a good thing for society to have lots of well educated people. It is an especially good thing to have well educated people raising children.

I cannot believe people are seriously stating that you effectively repay your financial debts by reproducing. This is the most batshit I've seen MN ever since a few assorted loons seriously argued for common assault and GBH to be legalised if the victim had been having an affair.

I'm so glad you people don't seem to exist in reality.

And OP has an agreement with her lender under which she is not currently liable to pay her debts. What's the difference?

That caveat is in place so as not to cripple low earners. It is a loophole. OP can legally take advantage of it while admitting she can afford to repay it, while never working full time, but chooses not to. But she's not asking whether it's legal, she knows it is. She's asking us whether it's moral and whether her local community work can be seen as fit repayment of a financial loan elsewhere. No and no.

Nonsense. How do you imagine we survived in the days when tuition was free and students were given grants?

Far, far fewer people went! The flipside of wider tertiary education is that we need to pay for it. OP took out a loan that was possible only because others repaid theirs and is now choosing not to repay hers even though she could. She asks us if this is unreasonable. Yes, OP, it is, but you clearly have no understanding of the concept or value of money.

I had one of the old-style student loans taken out in the early 90s. I paid that back. I think there's a personal integrity issue perhaps, but no social morality here. I don't know about the current loan system, but the old system covering student loan debt has been privatised. The government is not going to lose out by people deferring/not paying. It is a private company that does. And the government sold that debt for a fraction of what it was worth - if they had offered the chance for the debtors to pay it back at the same rate, I'm sure they'd have actually had much more success getting the loans repaid.

I cannot believe people are seriously stating that you effectively repay your financial debts by reproducing.

Absolutely no one has said that.

What people have said is that there is value in raising children, or caring for partners/other relatives, even if it's not monetary.

I am confused by the posters who argue that the OP is vulnerable because she (apparently) relies on her DH financially, and yet say that she should repay her loan based on family income (which would appear to be primarily earnt by DH!). Some muddled thinking here.
There is no 'morality' in paying a loan back early....I wonder how many of the posters who think this are rushing to overpay their mortgages because it is morally wrong not to do so.
Oh....and in reply to a previous question...Russell Group here too-not that it actually matters (and I definitely use my education, just not in a way that will make me rich; but then my morals mean I value other things more).

volunteering is fannying about???? It saves the government vast amounts, helps vulnerable people and supports communities!!!

Yep, my voluntary role saves our local council an estimated £14k a year. Before 2011 it was a paid part time role.

While I sometimes have reservations about the precedent set by using 'professional volunteers' as we are called, i'd rather the work was done by someone than no one.

Definitely don't pay it back until you are earning above the threshold. It is about your income, not your husband's. When I graduated in 2009 I went straight into a full-time, low-paid job and as I did a bit of overtime for a few months I had to repay some of it. It was a meagre amount, maybe £100, but as my annual salary was below the threshold I rang them and asked for it back. I hope to start working soon at an amount above the threshold, not before acquiring more student debt I might add, and will be happy to pay what I owe. Sadly personal illness and 2 disabled children have prevented that until now.

It doesn't matter whether people 'use' their degrees or not. It is a good thing for society to have lots of well educated people. It is an especially good thing to have well educated people raising children.

Yes, it is a good thing for society to have lots of well educated people. That's why we have this thing called "school".

Having kids is work. She's raising the taxpayers of the future, they'll pay our pensions and for our healthcare when we're old.

Unless her kids go to university and then become SAHPs, of course. But that's ok as long as they volunteer. Because people with degrees make better volunteers. Apparently

Shoutout, you said it on page 7: "She's raising the taxpayers of the future, they'll pay our pensions and for our healthcare when we're old." In context, implying it's a defence for defaulting on a financial loan for something other than pensions and healthcare....which we'll have paid for ourselves by working.

Batshit and financially unsound to say the least. I despair.

The problem with the OP's attitude is that very soon graduates will not get loans unless they pay them back within a certain amount of time. Or they won't get loans at all.

The reasons that loans were introduced in the first place was the huge number of people who did degrees at the taxpayers' expense and then never bothered working.

If you have the means (which you clearly do), then pay it back. It's like carrying on living in a council flat if you earn £80k. Yes, there's nothing stopping you doing it but it's morally dubious when housing is in crisis.

Some willful misreading of the facts here.

And, as pointed out by a previous poster, it isn't taxpayers' money! Rtft.

I'm so glad you people don't seem to exist in reality.

I exist in reality.

And OP has an agreement with her lender under which she is not currently liable to pay her debts. What's the difference?

That caveat is in place so as not to cripple low earners. It is a loophole. OP can legally take advantage of it while admitting she can afford to repay it, while never working full time, but chooses not to. But she's not asking whether it's legal, she knows it is. She's asking us whether it's moral and whether her local community work can be seen as fit repayment of a financial loan elsewhere. No and no.

No, it's not a loophole, it's a central term of the agreement. OP cannot afford to repay it; if she could, then self-evidently the SLC would make her repay. She has chosen not to work because she chooses to stay at home to look after her children, which is a perfectly respectable position to take and one which was factored into the calculations. She isn't saying that there are no circumstances under which she will ever work. And bear in mind that even if she were desperate to work, there are no guarantees that she would get a job.

The flipside of wider tertiary education is that we need to pay for it.

But we also need to pay for primary and secondary education, and don't make people repay the costs of that. And we are really very selective about which types of tertiary education we will pay for - it costs a hell of a lot to train people in the services and police, for instance, but despite the fact that that training gives people valuable transferrable skills we don't make them pay the costs back.

Sheba I don't know how you've inferred that i think she should 'default on her loan' - which is not how students loans work anyway, as so many other PPs have said it's more like a tax - just because she's reproduced.

I don't think that having children is in itself the same as contributing financially to society. I still think it's contributing to society though, in a different way. And it does (often) produce future taxpayers, which is good for the future of the country.

I think raising a family well, with love and care and security, is work, and it's valuable even though it's not paid. And I agree with a PP that we need well educated, well rounded people raising families.

I have no hand in this game anyway. No kids yet and I started my reasonably well paid job about 3 days after I graduated. Started paying my loan off at the beginning of the next financial year, have worked ever since.

As an aside, a vast amount of people never earn enough to pay for the education they receive, the healthcare they use over their lifetime and the pensions they collect. Especially as it's not uncommon these days for people to collect their pensions for 30 years. Someone more knowledgeable than me will be able to quote the level of salary at which people 'pay for themselves', but it's more than lots of people - especially women, for lots of reasons - earn.

There is no need to despair. January is almost over and it's the weekend - reasons to be cheerful if there ever were some.

The problem with the OP's attitude is that very soon graduates will not get loans unless they pay them back within a certain amount of time

Do think about that one for a second. I say to X: "I won't lend you this money unless you pay it back within 5 years." X says fine, and I pass over the money. After 5 years I haven't received a repayment. So I go to X and say "Right, I'm not going to unlend you that money". Just how far do you imagine that would get me?

And no-one is going to stop undergraduate loans. We need graduates too much.

Eh Caboodle? I have RTFT. Who paid for the OP's education (and yours for that matter) if it isn't the tax payer?

Mega - well you can start adding interest, or making an attachment of earnings. Or repossess stuff. Or any of the million and one things that bailiffs do to make people's lives bloody unpleasant when they default on a loan.

It happens with council tax. There is absolutely no reason why it won't happen to studen loans

Yes, Jiggly, that's the way standard loans work. That's not the same thing as saying you won't give someone a loan unless they pay it back within a certain amount of time.

Further, you can't do attachment of earnings orders unless people are earning, and if they don't possess anything of value then sending a bailiff in will be a waste of money.

The debt has been sold to a private firm jigglytuff
Oh...and I own a factory....pretty sure the corporation tax I pay and the tax paid by my staff (and my taxes) have paid for my education. I don't earn enough to pay one of my loans back because I pay a living wage to my staff.

So you're never going to work again,cause you married a solvent man?you go girl
Bit volunteering and bit housewife stuff and your man he financially provides
Meanwhile you do...well very little.certainly no employment.reliant on a man

And OP has not defaulted on the loan...so no need for baliffs yet

For those judging based off education - I have an entirely paid off education from not one but two Russell Group universities, plus the odd extra PG Cert I've picked up (and turned down Cambridge for an MA place, if we're keeping score like this, distasteful as it is) - and still think the OP shouldn't spare a second thought to paying off her loan, because that was the deal made when she took them: if she personally never made enough money to pay them back she doesn't have to. She could be a billionaire and she'd still have the moral high ground here.

Um. I meant she could be married to a billionaire. Obviously if she were a billionaire she should have paid them back.

TheProblemofSusan yes, spot on.

My 'beef' with student loans is the unfairness of a system where people who are trying to better themselves are loaned the money to do so but people who are not are just given it. Ok. I know that's a huge generalisation but the principle still stands.

Someone who is receiving higher education may need a loan to do it and to cover living costs. Their higher education may result in a job that covers their living costs and pays tax at whatever level. They won't need to rely on any benefits to live, they pay their NI too. The government has had to subsidise them for 3-4 years.
And there are some people who receive benefits for more than 3-4 years. Excluding those physically or mentally unable to do so, these people are a longer term drain on resources. Do not pay tax, receive help for housing, get tax credits etc. They are never required to pay back that money if their situation changes. Their long term income from benefits is way more than a student's.

I know this is simplistic, and it's a lot more complicated than how I've described. But, a student loan for 3-4 years is more likely to produce a person who is less dependent on benefits. And who will pay back more in taxes than they will have ever borrowed.
Don't think that all students graduate and then earn shit loads of money. Having a degree and maybe earning higher than the national average does not equal a lovely luxurious life. The tax on that sum is ugly, transport and housing is grim. If you're supporting a family it's even harder.