It's daft to pay off student loan

[Home77]

with inheritance when you are SAHM? friend says they did this...can't help thinking it is a shame as they could do with the money. they are in their 40s and surely student loans get wiped off after a certain number of years.

Costanza
Lots of courses cost much more than the £9250 fees
Sciences and engineering cost more. But they are of more public benefit so I'm very cool with the fact that bods doing media subsidise my kids.

I just wish that the 6.3% interest was not being charged while they are still studying.

Universities have the added advantage of being able to make money themselves through research and development.

Research doens't make any money - research councils are funded by the tax payer and we can't add profits to costs. In fact it's often difficult to charge the full overhead.

Sciences and engineering cost more. But they are of more public benefit so I'm very cool with the fact that bods doing media subsidise my kids.

Science and engineering are not the only courses that are of benefit to the public.

Also wanted to ask about that £5 figure. Given that courses cost different amounts to deliver yet students pay a flat fee, I'm actually quite interested to hear the workings behind the £5 figure.

What do you mean? Manchester for example has 30,000 students. It's VC earns £250,000 - so that's £8 per student per year (OK not £5 but still peanuts compared to the whole fee).

Perhaps the fees could be taken out of someone's estate when they die

A 50k loan @ 6%apr over 50 or 60 years would wipe out any Inheritance, around a 135k of interest, even with regular monthly repayments....rather unfair on poorer people who can't pay off the debt far earlier.

But yes, let's make Uni education just for the wealthy and encourage those who do make the grade, to move abroad.

But why should, say, a teacher have to pay back their loan, but someone else who chooses to pursue a career as a potter be able to avoid paying back any fees? Ok, so they might not be a "high" earner during their earning years (which from now on extend till 67, way beyond 30 years post university) but in the final wash up it seems fair that they repay their fees.

And what about the maintenance portion of the fees? Is repayment of that too avoided by not working or earning below the threshold?

I'm astonished how uninformed about the financing of education many people are.

FWIW Apprenticeships are even more surreal

The 'entitled to' attitude from a few posters on here is disgusting. Saying they have absolutely no intention of ever paying back ANY of their student debt, coz 'why should we LOLZ?' people got it for free years ago, so why don't they pay theirs back?' And other entitled, ridiculous gems!

@Home77

Nice drip feed too OP. Never mentioned you were on PIP etc etc etc in your first post saying you have no intention of ever paying it back.

It's a disgusting attitude, and proves that the system is flawed.

That's a waste of an education, and as the loan book is sold off, you may find that those who buy the debt will come after you.

That would certainly be karma biting the smug folk on the bum who think it's funny and clever to avoid ever paying a single penny of their student debt back! I DON'T PLAN TO PAY ANY OF IT BACK is what the OP said - disgusting entitled attitude.

FWIW Apprenticeships are even more surreal

How do they work?

I think it's wrong always to pursue earned income for tax. So someone on, what is it? £25K has to repay fees.

Someone on £20K or even nothing but who receives a big inheritance (as per OP's example) is not pursued.

I can't (quite rightly) claim benefits if I have £500K in the bank. I don't think you should be exempt from repaying fees if you have received inheritance/won the Lottery/both.

If you don’t earn enough to pay it back then it doesn’t make you entitled, it just means you don’t earn enough, the government made the rules for these loans and as long as people abide by the terms and conditions of them, they are doing nothing wrong. A lot of teachers also won’t pay back all their loans unless they are highly paid teachers, so are they entitled too.

Do we know OP’s friend got a big inheritance, I don’t think she said how much.

Melroses
Every large employer pays towards the apprenticeship Levy
that they can claw back as training fees to offset the wages of youngsters
but not many schools and hospitals are able to have random 17 year olds working on site
but big supermarkets fill their warehouses with them
so the public sector subsidises the private sector
AND
many training schemes have little or no value
so kids pay for useless courses and get no jobs at the end
but the companies still pocket the cash

@summerisgone
What about midwives?
Most of them will never earn enough to pay back the loans that they have to take out for their degrees that they have to have.
What about nurses?
What about teachers?
What about social workers?
Are they smug folk for not earning enough to pay back their debt?

Manchester for example has 30,000 students. It's VC earns £250,000 - so that's £8 per student per year (OK not £5 but still peanuts compared to the whole fee).

Well those figures themselves are slightly wrong for Manchester. But pointing to one, flat £5 figure for all UK students seems weird. Durham has half the amount of students as Manchester but still charges £9250. Its vice chancellor earns about the same and that's not taking into account any benefits. Has everyone forgotten the scandal of the grace and favour, near million pound homes etc?

Anyway, this is just to point out that universities aren't as cash strapped as some posters seem to be making out.

My original point was that elsewhere in Europe they manage perfectly well without charging fees and even send more people to university than we do.

Funny how all the virtue signallers claim that they're happy to pay more tax, yet when someone comes on suggesting they voluntarily pay off their student loan, it's regarded as crazy!

@IrmaFayLear

But why should, say, a teacher have to pay back their loan, but someone else who chooses to pursue a career as a potter be able to avoid paying back any fees? Ok, so they might not be a "high" earner during their earning years (which from now on extend till 67, way beyond 30 years post university) but in the final wash up it seems fair that they repay their fees.

Exactly.

Such a bizarre and entitled attitude for someone to rack up tens of 1000s of pounds in student debt for a degree, and then do their best to earn very little, so they never have to pay a PENNY back. WTF is the point?!

They are basically using public money to get a degree, so they can faff around for 3-4 years in education, and then think they're a cut above because they're got a degree, but they have no intention of giving anything back to society. As I said 'entitled,' and also very selfish.

@TalkinPaece

What about midwives? Most of them will never earn enough to pay back the loans that they have to take out for their degrees that they have to have.

What about nurses? What about teachers? What about social workers? Are they smug folk for not earning enough to pay back their debt?

What on earth are you on about? Most of these professions WILL earn over the threshold, and WILL pay some back.

Nevertheless, I am not talking about midwives and teachers and social workers etc, I am talking about entitled-to, selfish individuals, who take it upon themselves to do a degree, rack up 10s of 1000s of pounds of student debt, then announce proudly and smugly, that they have NO INTENTION of ever paying a penny back.

Disgusting attitude. As I said, there is a flaw in a system that allows this, and it needs sorting to stop this dreadful abuse of the system.

@KazzyHoward

When someone comes on suggesting they voluntarily pay off their student loan, it's regarded as crazy!

I don't think it is, and I said as much earlier in the thread. If you have a good inheritance or lottery win or whatever, and have enough money to pay it off, then you should. These individuals who have no intention of paying a PENNY back of their student debt, are the same as those who are on benefits, and win £150K to £200K on a lottery ticket (or get an inheritance) and go on message forums, asking for advice on how to 'hide' the money, so they don't have to sign off their benefits!

I have also seen them ask 'if my benefits are stopped, and I spend all £200K within a few months, will I be allowed to sign back on in a few months when I have spent it all.?'

My original point was that elsewhere in Europe they manage perfectly well without charging fees and even send more people to university than we do.

Exactly. That's because their governments see the value in funding higher education from taxation. Same as we used to, and IMO should continue to.

Then I'd imagine we wouldn't have anyone saying what a waste of money doing Fine Art and becoming a potter is. Even though the net cost to the tax payer is a little higher than the current loan system.

Summer. You have said exactly what I think but more eloquently.

If you have a good inheritance or lottery win or whatever, and have enough money to pay it off, then you should.

If it was called a graduate tax, and you were a SAHP and you came into money would you give some to the government in lieu of the tax you're not paying?

You think people genuinely curtail their own earning to avoid paying 9% to the govt? 🤔 It's a silver lining to the cloud of being a low earner, that's all.

I'm astonished how uninformed about the financing of education many people are.

I know!

There seems very little understanding also of just how many loans have been sold off. The taxpayer gets zero benefit from any repayments in that scenario, much less the universities. All gone. The moral argument for repayment just collapses there. There are people yarning on about abuse of the system, with nothing to say about loans being sold off for peanuts by the state to private companies, thus depriving the universities that way.

I mean, I don't pay mine at the moment due to part time work. When I don't have a preschool aged child any more, my income will increase and I'll likely go over the (fucking measly) 1998-2006 cohort threshold. But my loan has been sold, without my consent, and with it the opportunity for the state to profit from my increased earnings. I would have explained to the SLC that I expect to recommence earning over the threshold in the fairly near future, if they'd asked me. They didn't.

Ooo when do they cancel student loans???