Angry Scotland went for funny and landed on lame. Angry Salmond and its unwelcome reincarnation have always sucked.
Perhaps you could give some examples of your contributions elsewhere so I can judge whether you've always sucked. It would be harsh to draw that conclusion from just two posts.
Please stop pushing Angry Scotland's pointless and unfunny tweets. Everyone finds them tiresome.
One for the lawyers here: What’s the calculation of fines for motoring offences these days that gives someone with an 8-figure salary a £170 fine for drinking and driving?
I got a £500 fine for speeding a decade and a half ago - based on a week’s next income at the time.
Think the £170 is costs and they replaced the fine with 100hrs community service, didn't they?
In the circs, seems sensible. Esp. as Everton are fining him bigly, by the sounds of it...
Yes that’s right, they added a bit more to the story now that makes the point about fine and costs clear. Still surprised they didn’t give him a fine, or maybe they didn’t have the right to fine him a meaningful sum.
Hope they split his community service - half of it sweeping the streets and the other half doing football coaching for some some of the many poor kids in the city.
In some countries traffic and other offences are levied as a % of income. For example, a Finnish businessman was fined £100,000 for driving at 82 in a 60 zone.
Well we are still part of an organisation that decides things amongst its members so the fact that it seems to be irreversible shouldn't matter as the EU can create a statute whereby it is reversible.
Not that I want to reverse it. First we are hugely unlikely to get Dave's deal, and secondly it would be a huge humiliation which I think is undoable. This latter is the political barrier, not the EU small print.
It's undoubtedly reversible with the consent of all 28 countries, since membership exists by treaty and so the signatories to the treaty can decide what they like. The issue is: how easily could that be done, in what timescale, and with what formalities? For example, would it require an Irish referendum, and would the German supreme court cause difficulties? In practice, it would probably require consent by the European parliament as well.
Admittedly, it should be easier to get consent to extend the Article 50 deadline whilst these formalities were completed, but that would still require unanimity and is therefore unpredictable. In addition, we'd almost certainly get a worse deal than we had before - no rebate, no Dave's deal, probably fewer opt-outs. There would have to be some serious haggling, with various players seeing an opportunity to grab some pork from the barrel.
So, theoretically possible, but not easy in practice, and with no guarantee of success. As you say, also politically very problematic. Meanwhile the clock ticks.
Given the result of the referendum, and the general opinion expressed on all sides during it, what was “Dave’s deal” actually worth?
I am sure that Dr Monk is a fine dermatologist but he is making a very simple error. Only the most highly paid will actually pay back the student loan. For everyone else it is a tax of 9% on income above £21000 a year for thirty years after graduation. The actual size of a person's debt is completely irrelevant to what they are going to pay. As in my day we paid 33% basic rate, I struggle to feel too much sympathy for people paying 29%.
As a taxpayer though, I'm concerned about the figures he quotes. I know the Government has sold some of the loans books, presumably the use of RPI+3% was a sweetener for those deals, but who covers the write off costs of these debts after the 30 years? I suspect it's Johnny Taxpayer.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
It'd have to go to the CJEU though, which would limit the opportunities for such judicial merriment.
Unless we had a Belgian jurist on the CJEU to tell us how to pronounce De Keyser
Rhymes with Laser, though in Amsterdam and other regions, they pronounce it to rhyme with Kaiser.
Given the result of the referendum, and the general opinion expressed on all sides during it, what was “Dave’s deal” actually worth?
Quite a lot, in my minority opinion. In particular, the protection for the City (which was the bit I was most concerned about) was better than I had hoped for. It's a pity they didn't come up with something more attractive on benefits/immigration.
I suggest this piece should be read in conjunction with Martyn Lewis on this subject and as a counterpoint.
The debt amount is irrelevant to mortgage lenders as really this is a student tax of 9% on earnings over £21k pa - and it's only that which is taken in to consideration by them and that has a far less material impact on their affordability calculations than other debts like personal loans or credit cards.
Lewis made a good point on the radio recently after press reports of the Tories cutting the interest rates by saying it's not the interest rate that matters but the threshold where repayments start which would help most graduates - the former helps the highest earners most as it's only they who are ever likely to repay their debt.
"a student loan is the 'best' form of debt you'll ever get. The interest is relatively low and crucially you only need to repay it if you earn enough."
The perverse flaw of the current system is that someone who earns an average of £50k over their career will pay back more that than someone who averages £150k. Far better to just make it a tax levied on all students, if that is what is really needed.
Well we are still part of an organisation that decides things amongst its members so the fact that it seems to be irreversible shouldn't matter as the EU can create a statute whereby it is reversible.
Not that I want to reverse it. First we are hugely unlikely to get Dave's deal, and secondly it would be a huge humiliation which I think is undoable. This latter is the political barrier, not the EU small print.
It's undoubtedly reversible with the consent of all 28 countries, since membership exists by treaty and so the signatories to the treaty can decide what they like. The issue is: how easily could that be done, in what timescale, and with what formalities? For example, would it require an Irish referendum, and would the German supreme court cause difficulties? In practice, it would probably require consent by the European parliament as well.
Admittedly, it should be easier to get consent to extend the Article 50 deadline whilst these formalities were completed, but that would still require unanimity and is therefore unpredictable. In addition, we'd almost certainly get a worse deal than we had before - no rebate, no Dave's deal, probably fewer opt-outs. There would have to be some serious haggling, with various players seeing an opportunity to grab some pork from the barrel.
So, theoretically possible, but not easy in practice, and with no guarantee of success. As you say, also politically very problematic. Meanwhile the clock ticks.
Given the result of the referendum, and the general opinion expressed on all sides during it, what was “Dave’s deal” actually worth?
There were some good measures protecting the status of the City, but fundamentally it excluded us from 'Ever Closer Union'. It was the ultimate cake-and-eat-it settlement.
On topic, one of my granddaughters went to Uni in 2007, graduated in 2010 and then did a PGCE. She’s now thinking of returning to Uni to become an Ed.Psych. That’ll be, she expects in 2018
She seems totally unfazed by her debt, although of course she was at Uni before the hike to £9k. It’s just an extra tax as far as she’s concerned.
Her brother, who is two years younger and finished his teacher training a couple of years ago is equally unfazed and is indeed buying a house.
Wel of course she is unfazed- she got charged a third of the fees current students pay and the interest rate on her loan is currently capped at 1.25% compared to the 6.9% in force now.
dickhead discovers how JIT works 40 years too late
A dickhead would be a person who justs insults someone that has identified a real problem, and who doesn't bother to think about what the solution might be to that problem.
I went to university under the 1st iteration of tuition fees - I.e. £1k fees upfront and student loans for maintenance with interest rates set at RPI or BoE+1%. I'm 2 months away from paying it off! Seemed a much more reasonable settlement between the student and taxpayer.
dickhead discovers how JIT works 40 years too late
A dickhead would be a person who justs insults someone that has identified a real problem, and who doesn't bother to think about what the solution might be to that problem.
lol you couldnt tell your PPAP from your APQP
the crocodile tears for manufacturing from people who encouraged its demise are just plain risible
I am sure that Dr Monk is a fine dermatologist but he is making a very simple error. Only the most highly paid will actually pay back the student loan. For everyone else it is a tax of 9% on income above £21000 a year for thirty years after graduation. The actual size of a person's debt is completely irrelevant to what they are going to pay. As in my day we paid 33% basic rate, I struggle to feel too much sympathy for people paying 29%.
I would imagine that 'in your day' VAT was less than 20%?
And NI was a lot less than 12% back then. The true marginal rate paid by a student on £21k is 41%. Absurd.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
A second referendum campaign would be interesting. This time Leave would have to run on a transparent hard-Brexit ticket; there'd be no scope for obfuscating the matter a second time.
I don't accept any of the nonsense put about by posters here that there shouldn't be a second referendum or that our exit is a 'given'. The country should be given a clear choice of the three outcomes that are likely to be available to us.
1) Apologise for wasting everyone's time and rescind Article 50 - the EU would undoubtedly arrange that 'fix' 2) Go for EEA (Swiss/Norway style) with freedom of movement etc 3) Go for WTO and Canada deals with border controls and customs checks
With the first referendum it sounded like there was going to be no downside if voting no so thats what people did. Now we can start to see the true picture people should be given a choice. (A straightforward "first past the post" vote not AV). I despair that our politicians triggered Article 50 as soon as they could before working out what it was they wanted from the negotiations and more importantly whether they were likely to get it!!!
On today's You Gov leave would win 62 - 27
If you believe all those remainers 'getting behind' Brexit would still vote leave in the event of a second referendum on actual options then, well....
I am sure that Dr Monk is a fine dermatologist but he is making a very simple error. Only the most highly paid will actually pay back the student loan. For everyone else it is a tax of 9% on income above £21000 a year for thirty years after graduation. The actual size of a person's debt is completely irrelevant to what they are going to pay. As in my day we paid 33% basic rate, I struggle to feel too much sympathy for people paying 29%.
I would imagine that 'in your day' VAT was less than 20%?
And NI was a lot less than 12% back then. The true marginal rate paid by a student on £21k is 41%. Absurd.
plus they had tax relief on mortgage interest too.
I am sure that Dr Monk is a fine dermatologist but he is making a very simple error. Only the most highly paid will actually pay back the student loan. For everyone else it is a tax of 9% on income above £21000 a year for thirty years after graduation. The actual size of a person's debt is completely irrelevant to what they are going to pay. As in my day we paid 33% basic rate, I struggle to feel too much sympathy for people paying 29%.
I would imagine that 'in your day' VAT was less than 20%?
And NI was a lot less than 12% back then. The true marginal rate paid by a student on £21k is 41%. Absurd.
plus they had tax relief on mortgage interest too.
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
I went to university under the 1st iteration of tuition fees - I.e. £1k fees upfront and student loans for maintenance with interest rates set at RPI or BoE+1%. I'm 2 months away from paying it off! Seemed a much more reasonable settlement between the student and taxpayer.
What is the split between student contribution and taxpayer's contribution at that point. If £9k is required for it to be 100% from the student, then the balance at £1k is too far the other way.
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
Maybe that's because the only graduates who end up paying any interest at all are those who end up as high earners.
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
Maybe that's because the only graduates who end up paying any interest at all are those who end up as high earners.
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
I did not know you lot wanted anybody earning less than £21k per year to keep on earning less than £21k.
Aspiration society ! Aspire to earn less than £21k all my life.
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
Maybe that's because the only graduates who end up paying any interest at all are those who end up as high earners.
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
Na, they want the poorest taxpayers in the country to pay for the well-off to go for free.
If the Tories do not change the tuition fees /student loans thing significantly, they will lose the next election.
In the June election, Labour actually "won" in 18-44 age group and was equal in the 18-55 age group. Only in the 55+ age group Labour lost out even though the gap was lower than in 2015.
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
If the Tories do not change the tuition fees /student loans thing significantly, they will lose the next election.
In the June election, Labour actually "won" in 18-44 age group and was equal in the 18-55 age group. Only in the 55+ age group Labour lost out even though the gap was lower than in 2015.
Labour should hang their socialist heads in shame for introducing tuition fees back in 1998
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
Maybe that's because the only graduates who end up paying any interest at all are those who end up as high earners.
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
I did not know you lot wanted anybody earning less than £21k per year to keep on earning less than £21k.
Aspiration society ! Aspire to earn less than £21k all my life.
Good for you. No doubt you want to pay back a bit more for your university education than those less fortunate do.
I went to university under the 1st iteration of tuition fees - I.e. £1k fees upfront and student loans for maintenance with interest rates set at RPI or BoE+1%. I'm 2 months away from paying it off! Seemed a much more reasonable settlement between the student and taxpayer.
What is the split between student contribution and taxpayer's contribution at that point. If £9k is required for it to be 100% from the student, then the balance at £1k is too far the other way.
When you look at other developed economies, they mostly have the same percentage in Tertiary education as us, yet have lower fees, and in several these are paid for by the state as being good for the country.
Why are our fees so high, for courses even in the Russell group with less than 10 contact hours per week? I reckon it is a subsidy for the research work (and for Med Schools the NHS). Ask any academic how to get ahead, and it is all about research and grants, with very little about teaching. We need to consider what universities are for, and what sort of graduate skills are needed economically and culturally.
There is a risk of causing perverse incentives, such as graduate emigration, depressed earnings during peak consumer years affecting the economy, and also great uncertainty over what happens when the SLC loans go bad. Many are sub prime, a minimum of 33% even by the government's own figures.
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
Maybe that's because the only graduates who end up paying any interest at all are those who end up as high earners.
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
What the tories have done is push progressive taxation on the future middle class while exempting themselves.
Their client vote is fine - they can find the £50k or so behind the back of the sofa to buy their grandkids out of this pernicious scam.
Though at first I smiled when Laura Kuenssberg told of the politician who described Boris as a 'Poundland Donald Trump' when I tought about it it was actually unfair to Trump.
Though he's a charlatan a narcissist and a buffoon he doesn't come anywhere near Boris
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
The chap who does Money on 5Live [ must be a real Tory who does not bother to hide it ] keeps on saying that you pay only above £21k but forgets to mention the compound interest on the remaining debt.
Maybe that's because the only graduates who end up paying any interest at all are those who end up as high earners.
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
What the tories have done is push progressive taxation on the future middle class while exempting themselves.
Their client vote is fine - they can find the £50k or so behind the back of the sofa to buy their grandkids out of this pernicious scam.
It's an intergenerational f*ckover, Richard.
I have had this discussion with Fox jr. If he were to get a windfall £50 000, and pay off his loan, he may just be pissing it down the drain. If the scheme gets scrapped for a graduate tax, he would pay twice. It is worth watching to see how it gets dealt with by the Corbyn government first.
Martin Lewis still doesn't get it, he was played by Osborne.
The t&c's are irrelevant. The teenagers who are taking out the loans have written a blank cheque to the exchequer.
Your party nicked an extra 6k off median earning plan2 graduates a couple of years ago.
What on earth are you going on about? Future chancellors can always grab more off taxpayers, as you will find out in no uncertain terms if (God forbid) we end up with a Corbyn/McDonnell government. They don't need a student loan scheme to do that.
Essentially, in your terms, by living you are writing a blank cheque to future chancellors.
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
@tnewtondunn: When asked if they will resign, Cabinet ministers are traditionally very quick to say no if the answer is no. Boris just pointedly didn't.
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
Germany and Italy are notably lower than other OECD countries, so the relationship to economic performance is moot. Perhaps it is because of Germany's manufacturing dominance, but generally countries educating a lower percentage have either undeveloped or agricultural economies.
PB Tories are also very biased towards STEM subjects, neglecting the fact that our cultural and creative industries are some of our most successful earners. Art and Design matter.
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
That is very misleading. The article talks about tertiary education which includes not only University but also :
"colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers."
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
Germany and Italy are notably lower than other OECD countries, so the relationship to economic performance is moot. Perhaps it is because of Germany's manufacturing dominance, but generally countries educating a lower percentage have either undeveloped or agricultural economies.
PB Tories are also very biased towards STEM subjects, neglecting the fact that our cultural and creative industries are some of our most successful earners. Art and Design matter.
german manufacturing has a strong apprentice base
I had an annual in take of 6 apprentices each year ona 3 year course with in house and external training
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
That is very misleading. The article talks about tertiary education which includes not only University but also :
"colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers."
If you read the second table, the vast majority are degree level courses. 42% degrees equivalent in the UK, similar in other OECD countries.
There may well be large numbers being poorly served by their universities here compared to our competitors, but that is a different issue to our students educational abilities.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
That’s a very good point about the pensions changes, which has now been mostly forgotten about, but made a huge difference to those who were putting every penny they had into their pension as annuity rates dropped through the floor.
If the Tories do not change the tuition fees /student loans thing significantly, they will lose the next election.
In the June election, Labour actually "won" in 18-44 age group and was equal in the 18-55 age group. Only in the 55+ age group Labour lost out even though the gap was lower than in 2015.
Labour should hang their socialist heads in shame for introducing tuition fees back in 1998
Quite right. A Tory did it actually [ from within the Labour Party ]. However, £3k and £9.2k, that is a 3 fold increase - per year. Ouch!
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
50% is a percentage common across the world. South Korea has an astonishing 68% tertiary educated, while even Mexico or China have percentages in the twenties.
This was, at least in part, the Blair/Mandelson/Adonis vision. For 21st century we need trained young people, highly skilled. Information economy etc etc
The issue is what they are being trained in, judging by comments by other PBers.
@tnewtondunn: When asked if they will resign, Cabinet ministers are traditionally very quick to say no if the answer is no. Boris just pointedly didn't.
He seems to have said the questioner was barking up the wrong tree.
What about them? The Tories won a majority when they tripled them.
and then they didnt
Osbornes poll tax
Mrs May losing Dave's majority was down to her being crap and egotistical.
George would have, metaphorically, chopped Corbyn into a million pieces at a general election.
youre just so out of touch
I asked my first time voting son what he enjoyed about the election
Clegg losing his seat - and the same among all his mates
Brexit didnt get a mention
Osborne fked the young and the Tories will have to ditch his policy sooner rather than later
The longer it goes on, the more difficult a new system will be. A third of these Loans are never going to be repaid according to the government. How do other countries do it better and cheaper? One way is for students to live at home and go to the local Uni, but there are downsides to that too. Many US states have free or reduced fees for native students at State Universities too, but perhaps it interferes with social mobility.
My own idea is for students to have free tuition three years out from school, and having paid income tax for 2 of those years. It would stop university being the default option, make for more mature choices as to course, and make it easier for students to work part time.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
Many of those changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale - how many people can afford to put £30k pa in a pension?!. Freezing the state pension for the whole of the 2010-2015 Parliament would have been an equivalent contribution from the elderly to tuition fees.
What about them? The Tories won a majority when they tripled them.
and then they didnt
Osbornes poll tax
Mrs May losing Dave's majority was down to her being crap and egotistical.
George would have, metaphorically, chopped Corbyn into a million pieces at a general election.
youre just so out of touch
I asked my first time voting son what he enjoyed about the election
Clegg losing his seat - and the same among all his mates
Brexit didnt get a mention
Osborne fked the young and the Tories will have to ditch his policy sooner rather than later
The longer it goes on, the more difficult a new system will be. A third of these Loans are never going to be repaid according to the government. How do other countries do it better and cheaper? One way is for students to live at home and go to the local Uni, but there are downsides to that too. Many US states have free or reduced fees for native students at State Universities too, but perhaps it interferes with social mobility.
My own idea is for students to have free tuition three years out from school, and having paid income tax for 2 of those years. It would stop university being the default option, make for more mature choices as to course, and make it easier for students to work part time.
it;s plain madness
now roll on 10 years and ask yourself what will happen when HMG sells the loan book to shyster banks who wish to collect the debt ?
Tories and LDs should hang their heads in shame on this one
On topic, the interest rate charged on student debt is outrageous.
People don't necessarily mind a big debt against their name, that they took on, but they do like to know they can pay it off in a reasonable timescale, and to plan to do so.
If most people can pay a mortgage on an average home of, say, £150k off over 25 years, then they should be able to plan for the same with their student loan of about £50k by the age of 50.
I agree with Alastair's suggestions on interest rate setting.
So two of the unis that are younger than 560/500 years old are 1 and 2 for the best universities in terms of graduate earnings.
Not surprised about arts subjects not paying well, but I wouldn't say you shouldn't study, for example, history at uni or Fine Art. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer or an engineer.
I would say studying them at £9,000 per year is a waste of time for the vast majority of students.
You better hope you land a place on one of those ultra competitive graduate schemes otherwise you will be starting at the bottom with all the non-graduates.
An engineering degree does not just limit you to a career in engineering. It opens so many doors to careers which require strong analytical and problem solving skills.
I've just discovered that the great Jerry Pournelle died last week. He was probably the first person to write a novel on a word processor, and one of the man drivers behind the US's commercial space program that allowed SpaceX, Blue Origin and others to thrive.
One solution could be that rather than write off the entire amount 30 years after graduation , that the total is written down using a taper by 3% pa - this would help alleviate the compound interest problem.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
Many of those changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale - how many people can afford to put £30k pa in a pension?!. Freezing the state pension for the whole of the 2010-2015 Parliament would have been an equivalent contribution from the elderly to tuition fees.
You are right, those changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale. Exactly the same is true of the student loans that @Pong is bitching about. Osborne's changes reduced payments for less well-off graduates.
I'm not sure why Osborne protecting the less well off is seen as a bad thing.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
Many of those changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale - how many people can afford to put £30k pa in a pension?!. Freezing the state pension for the whole of the 2010-2015 Parliament would have been an equivalent contribution from the elderly to tuition fees.
It;s true that changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale. Exactly the same is true of the student loans that @Pong is bitching about. Osborne's changes reduced payments of less well-off graduates.
I'm not sure why Osborne protecting the less well off is seen as a bad thing.
I've just discovered that the great Jerry Pournelle died last week. He was probably the first person to write a novel on a word processor, and one of the man drivers behind the US's commercial space program that allowed SpaceX, Blue Origin and others to thrive.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
Many of those changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale - how many people can afford to put £30k pa in a pension?!. Freezing the state pension for the whole of the 2010-2015 Parliament would have been an equivalent contribution from the elderly to tuition fees.
It;s true that changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale. Exactly the same is true of the student loans that @Pong is bitching about. Osborne's changes reduced payments of less well-off graduates.
I'm not sure why Osborne protecting the less well off is seen as a bad thing.
@Pong : As for the inter-generational bit, you seem extremely selective in your indignation. Did you complain when Osborne shifted money away from people coming up to retirement, by changing the rules on deferring state pensions, by slashing the lifetime and annual pension contribution allowances, by raising the state pension age, and by changing the inflation calculation?
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
Many of those changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale - how many people can afford to put £30k pa in a pension?!. Freezing the state pension for the whole of the 2010-2015 Parliament would have been an equivalent contribution from the elderly to tuition fees.
It;s true that changes only affected those at the richer end of the income scale. Exactly the same is true of the student loans that @Pong is bitching about. Osborne's changes reduced payments of less well-off graduates.
I'm not sure why Osborne protecting the less well off is seen as a bad thing.
Rennie is the biggest balloon in Scottish politics.
Vince Cable is going to be the next PM and the SNP are on the way out at 8 times the support the Libs can muster.
Only Rennie could speak the day after a Panelbase poll showing the SNP makin g sweeping gains at the expense of the unionist trio.
I am however nostalgic for the Salmond days at FMQs when he made mincemeat of Rennie, Davidson and whoever was Labour leader at the time and that on a weekly basis.
Your article doesn't say that students get their debts cancelled after thirty years, making a loan a bit like a graduate tax (although by no means a perfect one) on earnings above the threshold. The 'debt' incurred doesn't operate like commercial debt and isn't considered as debt in applications for financial products. Please consider including the 30 year cut off in your article, as it runs the risk of putting off prospective students for whom a student loan is their best option.
It's also worth noting that postgraduate (masters) loans operate differently and doctoral loans haven't even been launched yet.
Don't get me wrong, the tuition fees are too high and the kinds of situations you quote are all too common. Especially when you consider that the majority of people, who start on a low salary and work up gradually, could potentially pay more on the long run (assuming they dont get it cancelled) than someone starting off with a ridiculously high salary.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Seems sensible, really. As a high earner who has occasionally had a speeding ticket it makes me wince, but that's the idea.
Rhymes with Laser, though in Amsterdam and other regions, they pronounce it to rhyme with Kaiser.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/909782746347827200
Can't believe it's already been three years!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/18/boris-johnson-brexit-theresa-may-trudeau-conservatives-split-over-boris-johnsons-brexit-article-as-backlash-continues-politics-live
17:36
You've only seen the top part. I have £5 that says he was only wearing a pink feather boa below the waist.
the crocodile tears for manufacturing from people who encouraged its demise are just plain risible
I thought you lefties were in favour of progressive taxation, but apparently not.
looks like Wolfgang Schauble's on his way out post German GE
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article168756434/Als-Schaeuble-die-Kanzlerin-mit-wenigen-Saetzen-haette-stuerzen-koennen.html
Aspiration society ! Aspire to earn less than £21k all my life.
In the June election, Labour actually "won" in 18-44 age group and was equal in the 18-55 age group. Only in the 55+ age group Labour lost out even though the gap was lower than in 2015.
As a number of people have already said , the root of this whole problem is the idiotic idea that 50% of school leavers should go to university. It devalues the achievement, does nothing to help either the individual or the country and costs a vast sum of money that someone has to pay.
We should revert to between 5% and 10% of school leavers going to university, funded by the taxpayer when they are pursuing courses that will benefit the country but only on condition they work in the UK for at least 5 years after graduating.
Why are our fees so high, for courses even in the Russell group with less than 10 contact hours per week? I reckon it is a subsidy for the research work (and for Med Schools the NHS). Ask any academic how to get ahead, and it is all about research and grants, with very little about teaching. We need to consider what universities are for, and what sort of graduate skills are needed economically and culturally.
There is a risk of causing perverse incentives, such as graduate emigration, depressed earnings during peak consumer years affecting the economy, and also great uncertainty over what happens when the SLC loans go bad. Many are sub prime, a minimum of 33% even by the government's own figures.
Their client vote is fine - they can find the £50k or so behind the back of the sofa to buy their grandkids out of this pernicious scam.
It's an intergenerational f*ckover, Richard.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/should-i-get-student-loan?_ga=2.183990499.499017970.1505751983-366126998.1505751983
Though he's a charlatan a narcissist and a buffoon he doesn't come anywhere near Boris
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment
Martin Lewis still doesn't get it, he was played by Osborne.
The t&c's are irrelevant. The teenagers who are taking out the loans have written a blank cheque to the exchequer.
Your party nicked an extra £6k off median earning plan2 graduates just a couple of years ago.
Essentially, in your terms, by living you are writing a blank cheque to future chancellors.
The money had to come from somewhere. We were, as the saying goes, all in it together.
PB Tories are also very biased towards STEM subjects, neglecting the fact that our cultural and creative industries are some of our most successful earners. Art and Design matter.
"colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers."
I had an annual in take of 6 apprentices each year ona 3 year course with in house and external training
There may well be large numbers being poorly served by their universities here compared to our competitors, but that is a different issue to our students educational abilities.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/18/ban-social-media-trolls-from-voting-election-watchdog-suggests?CMP=share_btn_tw
Spoiler : David Davis doesn't come out well.
The issue is what they are being trained in, judging by comments by other PBers.
Osbornes poll tax
George would have, metaphorically, chopped Corbyn into a million pieces at a general election.
That could be read many ways.
Put people who make credible threats to kill others in prison, they can’t vote from there.
Trudeau in Ottawa
Trump in New York
Macron in New York
Speech in Florence to World's press
She is getting out there and it could be a big week for Brexit and Theresa May herself.
Big press pack with her - she spoke with Trudeau today with less hesitation
Shame for the Lib Dems Conference - but they only speak to themselves anyway
I asked my first time voting son what he enjoyed about the election
Clegg losing his seat - and the same among all his mates
Brexit didnt get a mention
Osborne fked the young and the Tories will have to ditch his policy sooner rather than later
youre a would be southerner, Yorkshire disowns you
My own idea is for students to have free tuition three years out from school, and having paid income tax for 2 of those years. It would stop university being the default option, make for more mature choices as to course, and make it easier for students to work part time.
now roll on 10 years and ask yourself what will happen when HMG sells the loan book to shyster banks who wish to collect the debt ?
Tories and LDs should hang their heads in shame on this one
People don't necessarily mind a big debt against their name, that they took on, but they do like to know they can pay it off in a reasonable timescale, and to plan to do so.
If most people can pay a mortgage on an average home of, say, £150k off over 25 years, then they should be able to plan for the same with their student loan of about £50k by the age of 50.
I agree with Alastair's suggestions on interest rate setting.
Of course, it wasn't as simple as them doing whatever the progressive Left might have liked them to do, but it was their call all the same.
You better hope you land a place on one of those ultra competitive graduate schemes otherwise you will be starting at the bottom with all the non-graduates.
An engineering degree does not just limit you to a career in engineering. It opens so many doors to careers which require strong analytical and problem solving skills.
I've just discovered that the great Jerry Pournelle died last week. He was probably the first person to write a novel on a word processor, and one of the man drivers behind the US's commercial space program that allowed SpaceX, Blue Origin and others to thrive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/obituaries/jerry-pournelle-science-fiction-novelist-and-computer-guide-dies-at-84.html
There will be no more chaos in the manor ...
One solution could be that rather than write off the entire amount 30 years after graduation , that the total is written down using a taper by 3% pa - this would help alleviate the compound interest problem.
I'm not sure why Osborne protecting the less well off is seen as a bad thing.
DFID £13 billion per annum
start there
NEW THREAD
But it is a big week with intense scrutiny - let's see how she gets on and then imagine Corbyn in the same role
Rennie is the biggest balloon in Scottish politics.
Vince Cable is going to be the next PM and the SNP are on the way out at 8 times the support the Libs can muster.
Only Rennie could speak the day after a Panelbase poll showing the SNP makin g sweeping gains at the expense of the unionist trio.
I am however nostalgic for the Salmond days at FMQs when he made mincemeat of Rennie, Davidson and whoever was Labour leader at the time and that on a weekly basis.
Nicola is far too kinf to these numpties.
It's also worth noting that postgraduate (masters) loans operate differently and doctoral loans haven't even been launched yet.
Don't get me wrong, the tuition fees are too high and the kinds of situations you quote are all too common. Especially when you consider that the majority of people, who start on a low salary and work up gradually, could potentially pay more on the long run (assuming they dont get it cancelled) than someone starting off with a ridiculously high salary.