-
But students only have to pay back if they earn above the income threshold and unpaid loans expire eventually too. Not everyone will actually pay the full amount. Plus, free university education disproportionately benefits the middle class, because their children make up a large part of the student population and the saving is meaningfull to them.
hesa-
Yes, it was considered that, on balance, the middle classes might be able to afford fees, and that reinvesting that money into early education could potentially have a significant impact on the lives of those who traditionally might not have benefited from much schooling. So, genuinely a redistributive policy.
-
Correct but a £24K student loan is not insignificant.
Where I studied (Netherlands) years ago your parents must give you X if they refuse the government gives it. Then you can borrow Y for cheap at the government. Uni fees were £2000 they are a bit more now.
So in most cases parents paid part, the loans did the rest, I had to pay back £500 for 10 years. My parents paid the fees. But £8k a year they could have just about managed, maybe but I can't. I'm saving just in case my son goes to uni.
I agree with fees and redistribution but the middle class also is the main tax base and there's only so much squeezing one can do.
I wonder if it pays off in the end with defaulted loans. Maybe free education with more progressive taxation fills the pot better.
Lfgss economics chat then :)
boristrump
JWestland
Never thought about it that way, that's interesting.
My concern is that they simply got too high, £8000 a year? That's a 24K for 3 years so you have to save our £1000 a year from birth. Not something everyone can do.