To think student funding is in crisis and yet another area this government just can’t be bothered to fix.

[Fr00tL00ps]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67206767

To get access to full loans your family needs to earn under £25k. In this climate many families above can’t afford to top up and fund now sky high rental fees and utilities as they’re paying for rises in their own. There is now a two tier uni experience with the children of those under £25k and richer families able to top up able to attend uni full time and eat.

Why is it ok for for young people to live in poverty just because they’re students ? Also why is parental income taken into account for an 18 year old at uni living away from home but not for an 18 year old living at home receiving Universal Credit?

I think the same loan amount should be accessible to all students, regardless of their parent's income and the maximum loan should be linked to inflation.

This x 100.

Look at how many u-turns Labour's done. They were going to abolish tuition fees but then looked in the piggy bank and it was empty.

Corbyn stated that he would have removed tuition fees and would have instead funded higher education by increasing national insurance and corporation tax. In the long term this plan would have been expected to cost the government about £8 billion a year.

Did that look good to anyone ?

OK, so how would that be funded?

Why shouid the child of a wealthy couple be entitled to the same as a family barely scaping by?

Help should be targeted to those most in need. Its not a level playing field to start of with.

Yes, for the past 25 years, "tax" rises have been aimed more at workers rather than across the board, and it;s now reached the limit. NIC has been the "tax" that's risen most, but of course, that only affects workers. It doesn't affect pensioners or buy to let investors or those living on investment or foreign income. NIC needs to be broadened to include ALL sources of income, either that, or scrapped and income tax raised instead.

Again, for 25 years, politicians/governments of both colours have encouraged/incentivised tax savings, i.e. ISAs, SIPPS, dividend tax free allowance, interest tax free allowance, raising the personal tax allowance above inflation. It's sent the wrong message that it's good not to pay tax. That's caused a whole load of human behaviour issues that has meant more and more people don't want to pay tax, at all, or minimise it. That's led to "cash in hand" working, black economy, etc. Government message should have been that paying tax is good as it pays for services. However, starting with Brown/Blair, the message has been to avoid tax!

Even people who don't pay income tax/NIC now resent paying tax!! My MIL is a case in point, her income is below the personal allowance - she used to pay tax but now she doesn't. Yet she still goes on and on about how "her" tax payments are paying for benefits etc. - it's just her mindset - she thinks she's paying tax even though she isn't and still begrudges it!

Everyone's mindset needs to be changed. We need a simpler/fairer tax system. It needs to be "normal" that people pay tax, even the lower earners, and even if it's at a much lower rate. I'd go for several tiers starting at 10%, then 20, 30, 40, so more people pay, but pay at a much lower rate.

That wouldn’t be possible to do now- you need a lot of evidence in order to be designated estranged

The whole way higher education is funded, as well as student loans, needs an overhaul.

Other countries don't have such a culture of "going away" to Uni. Parents just continue to provide food and a roof over their head at home for a few more years. Students live at home and study locally and then make their way out into the world once they can afford to support themselves.

Because the entitlement is to a loan to an adult?

For a start, they're not a "child", they're an adult! What is wrong is that the LOANS aren't available in full to all. They should be and that's the problem. Even adult offspring of rich people should be entitled to claim the LOAN, because sometimes their parents simply aren't go to pay, however rich they are.

There should be fewer options for not repaying the loan, i.e. a lower threshold for repayments, and repayments lasting for a longer period of time, maybe at a lower percentage rate, and definitely they should not be written off when the person moves abroad! Maybe even the loan should remain in place until the person dies and then any balance taken from the estate. There are too many ways for them not to repay the loans, and that's the real problem.

In my experience even most families on much higher incomes do not stump up the 9k a year for fees. Most students take out the loan and leave uni with a 27K plus debt. Admittedly wealthier families can help towards living expenses but many kids do get a part time/holiday job.

Personally, I think EVERYTHING needs an overhaul, the student loans, taxes, benefits, the lot. None of it is fit for purpose anymore. I used to be against universal basic income, but seeing how bad the existing systems are these days, I think something like that, something fundamental, is the only way we're going to see any change - otherwise, whether it's Starmer or Sunak, the next five years will be just more of the same rearranging of the Titianic's deck chairs and none of the fundamental problems will ever get dealt with.

If they are at University they aren’t ‘kids’ they are adults and their opportunity to go on to Higher Education should not be reliant upon their parents ability - or willingness - to pay for them to do so. Maintenance Loans being tied to household income (and that would include the income of a step parent or parents partner who may have absolutely no interest in financially supporting or contributing to an adult child’s education) makes no sense whatsoever when there is currently no legal requirement for the parent to actually make the contribution in the first place. The loan is the responsibility of the University student to pay back in future if and when their earnings reach the threshold. And that is before you get in to detail of the fact that the loan amount - even the maximum - has not kept pace with inflation and the cost of living. It is a ridiculous system, The link between parental income and an adult’s chance to access University needs to be broken.

One issue is the rates of loan pay back are really low

I don’t usually follow Martin Lewis but Ds shared with me a video his school showed them

Really good and basic info on loans. He went round a crowded hall to stop at the point where people actually paid it back. It was really late into the crowd

If by ‘riff raft’ you mean students from a poorer background then that’s not really what is happening atm. They would actually get the full maintenance loan as it stands now. It’s more middle income students that are in a precarious position right now. However, because it has not kept pace with inflation and COL then, even with the full loan, but the inability of their parents to be able to contribute, then yes the poorest students will rapidly be forced out of the opportunity to access higher education.

The maintenance loan and thresholds should increase with inflation however students have always worked and that hasn't changed. Rent costs are now crazy and the government has failed over years to deal with the housing crisis.

The reality is that university from current levels will drop as young people will make decisions to go straight to work or into apprenticeships. This will lower the demand for accomodation so costs will go down.

For many young people, not going to Uni is absolutely the right path and for too long university has been the default.

For those who are caught in the parent income trap and want to go to university trap they can earn money whilst at University. They can work the summer pre Uni or take a gap year, this was what I did to get to University as my parents couldn't afford to support me.

I think students have to be realistic about university costs prior to applying, we had to rule out some places purely on costs. Not ideal but that's just life.

It's important to give our our young people confidence that they can cope with the adult choices and whilst life may at times be tough they will get through.

For the people saying that working part-time jobs is the norm when doing a degree, I agree that's fine for most degrees, but what about teaching, nursing, midwifery, medicine etc, where the hours of the course and often the shift work means that they don't have time for part-time jobs? What then?

Student loans used to stretch much further though - when I went to uni in 2008 rent used up about half of my maintenance loan (and it was the minimum loan. It was Cambridge so accommodation was much cheaper than some places but still...). According to that article, the average rent is about the same as the average loan - so for many people their rent won't be covered by the loan.

It was true for a long time that students from poor families would be better off than those from middle income families. Even in the 1970s when my parents were at university, their full grants were much more than many friends received from their wealthier families.

The point of the article, though, is that even students from the poorest families are no longer adequately funded (even ignoring that their money now comes as a loan not a grant). The average student rent takes up such a high proportion of the maximum maintenance loan that the student receiving it is left with 50p a week for food, clothing, heating and everything else.

The lowest income threshold for repayment to begin is £22,015.00. Or £21,000.00 for a master’s/doctoral. Hardly a fortune is it?

But who on 25k can afford to subsidise their child?

On a separate note the interest rates are so high that unless you jump straight into a very high paying job your unlikely to pay back your loan. There's no point subsidising a small amount, if you can afford to pay the whole thing then its worth it but subsidising a small amount doesn't change how much you will pay and just costs you money

Before unnecessarily subsidising just check earning potential and when it's expected to pay the loan off, alongside the length of degree. A 4/5yr degree for example is pointless to subsidise because the loan will be so high. And even high paying careers often have a few low paying years at the start

Watch the video. He knows what he’s talking about

Google Martin Lewis university fees I’m sure it’ll come up

When did you attend university? What do you mean by funding? The maintenance loan was introduced in 1990 - before that it was a grant. So if you didn’t take the grant then presumably you were also at university when it was free and didn’t leave with circa £50,000 debt?
What other education do you think shouldn’t be funded by the saintly taxpayer? Shall we eradicate state funded education entirely then?

@Livinghappy For many young people, not going to Uni is absolutely the right path and for too long university has been the default.

Agreed.

We don't need people with "Mickey Mouse" degrees.

We need people who can fix things (like white goods), and who have a trade/skill.

We need plumbers, decorators, joiners, electricians, gardeners, chefs/cooks, tree surgeons, fencing suppliers, carpenters, roofers, car mechanics etc.

Degrees in 'Textiles', 'Media studies', 'Art History', 'Ethnic and civilization studies', 'Travel and tourism' are pretty useless when it comes to getting a job.

I'm not saying it doesn't need an overhaul.

But that's the system at the moment. Adult or not an 18 year old from a wealthy family has far more advantages so no they shouldn't be classed the same.

I’ve never understood the logic of assessing an 18 year old student based on their parents’ income. They are fully grown adults and should all be treated equally. For a person in their 20s to have their finances affected by their parents’ income is ridiculous.

Some students might have parents with higher incomes but who are unable/unwilling to provide financial support, and yet they are penalised under the current loan system.

We cannot possibly compare students now with students a generation ago. It’s not as straightforward as saying “well students will just have to go and get a job”.

Living costs now are much higher comparatively (for students and parents). There were no tuition fees until 1998 (I think there was a different fee system pre 1970s). Interest rates on student loans are now at 6-7%, higher than they were previously. There were also student grants more widely available. It wasn’t beyond the realms of possibility for a student a generation ago to have had minimal parental financial support but leave university with minimal/no debt (by having no tuition fees, grants and a summer job).

Families now face having to either find tens of thousands of pounds (often parents will be looking forward to retirement at this stage of life, but instead have to fund their adult children rather than save), or alternatively students are saddled with huge debt.

I’d be interested what the Labour Party plans on student finance are. The Labour Party pledged to scrap tuition fees in the 2019 manifesto, in 2020 Starmer became leader after promising to scrap tuition fees, but this year they’ve backtracked on that promise and said it will no longer happen.