Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

Goodnight?

More or Less on Radio4 does some numbers on the new system:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdkf9
Makes it clear that while the eventual funding burden on those about to go to university doesn't change that much (old system: graduates (and non-graduates) pay for students through general taxation, new system: graduates pay for themselves plus or minus a bit), but changing the system at this time means that current tax-payer graduates get let off paying a big chunk of what they would have contributed.

My student loan incurs interest.
Are the government not also planning on 'selling off' the student loan book?

Almost certainly. When the loans are paid out at the start, the money comes from the same place as current university funding. They claim these measures are part of reducing the national debt, but waiting 10 to 20 years for the money to start flowing in as fast as it's being paid out in new loans isn't exactly compatible with the hurry they seem to be in, so i expect them to start selling on the debt pretty soon after they've created it.

Money is debt, so by making this debt explicit and trade-able the government magically creates a big lump of new money.

You can't be serious - you'd be comfortable starting your working life sitting on that level of debt.

I think there is an increasingly big difference between a personal loan from a commercial bank that will get very nasty if you can't meet repayments proportional to the size of your debt, and a student loan, which is more like a personalised graduate tax.

Unfortunately, even if i'm right, many people won't see it this way and will be scared off by fear of debt. I think the social impact of this could be quite bad, and isn't clear yet.

Also, the interest is charged at the inflation level. Which is fine if your salary also rises with that level. I don't think my salary has that link

It may not be in your contract, but all else being equal, market forces will raise salaries in your industry in line with inflation. When the economy isn't fucked, most people get a small pay rise every year just to account for inflation. If not, get a better union or pick a healthier industry.

It annoys me that lots of the people opposing these measures say 'we'd raise money with a graduate tax instead', as if that was a completely different policy instead of a very similar policy. I have a lot more respect for opposition based on this being a reduction in overall funding, and opposing the loss of the EMA.

Didn't they alter the rules this year as inflation has been 0%? I believe loans will still rise 1.5% this year regardless.

It went negative a while back, annualised I believe it's currently at 4.5% ish (RPI)

More or Less on Radio4 does some numbers on the new system:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdkf9

I may listen to that at home. I enjoy the program, they did a very good one on bike safety a while back as well...

I think there is an increasingly big difference between a personal loan from a commercial bank that will get very nasty if you can't meet repayments proportional to the size of your debt, and a student loan, which is more like a personalised graduate tax.

I like your description - it works in the same way as a mortgage, possibly in an even better way if they SLC is less nasty than the banks (lets see who all that structrued debt gets sold too in a couple of years time mind). However, you're asking an 18 year old to make that decision (which is ridiculous); but the main problem is that I believe that it's the duty of the government to pay for people to get higher education. If too many are going, offer alternatives (the only one being offered here is 'do one' if you can't afford it).

It may not be in your contract, but all else being equal, market forces will raise salaries in your industry in line with inflation.

I know that, I'm not sure what point I was trying to make really; probably just being argumentative..

It annoys me that lots of the people opposing these measures say 'we'd raise money with a graduate tax instead', as if that was a completely different policy instead of a very similar policy.

I agree - it doesn't make sense to me either.

It's different in that the tax would persist beyond the point of repayment. Which is pretty fucked up.

you're kidding! you'd get the graduate tax for the rest of your working life! that's bad...

It's different in that the tax would persist beyond the point of repayment. Which is pretty fucked up.

Not on average. The same amount of money has to be raised, so although payments would continue until retirement they'd be smaller and some people on lower wages would never pay back what they owed. Others would pay more, but the average person would pay back just what their education cost (+ inflation and admin costs).

The proposed loan system is almost the same, except it gets it over with a bit quicker: 30 years if you don't pay your way, much quicker if you're raking it in and subsidising others. Don't know if that's good or bad.

more here http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html?camp=localsearch:on:twit:rtbutton

1 Attachment

Sorry to repost from my previous post but here are a few figures

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, for about half of graduates, the plan is essentially a 9% graduate tax for 30 years, because they will not finish paying off the debt by the 30-year cut-off point.
Assuming fees of £7,500 for a three year degree, plus maintenance loans, its modelling shows that the top 10% of graduate earners will clear their debts, on average, in about 15 years. But a middle-earning graduate would need to earn, for example, an average of £48,850 a year for 26 years to pay off their debt.

They are also looking at a charge for paying loans off early. With charging interest (0% - 3%) those that take near the 30 years to pay off the debt will in effect pay more than those who pay off in say 15 years.

http://guerillaphotography.tumblr.com/post/2166624697/dayx3-student-protests-london-9th-dec-2010

my blog post from inside Parliament square yesterday, well that was fun.

Not on average. The same amount of money has to be raised, so although payments would continue until retirement they'd be smaller and some people on lower wages would never pay back what they owed. Others would pay more, but the average person would pay back just what their education cost (+ inflation and admin costs).

The proposed loan system is almost the same, except it gets it over with a bit quicker: 30 years if you don't pay your way, much quicker if you're raking it in and subsidising others. Don't know if that's good or bad.

But a graduate tax is philosophically very different from a loan and repayment system.

filmed in my uni
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9277595.stm

This is a great photo

Is there an option allowing fees to be paid up front- i.e. first day of term you rock up with a cheque for 9K?

If I were to start off studying Architecture again I'd be looking at £45,000 in fees, plus what it cost to live for five years- an easy £100,000 for the lot I would think.

Starting salary for an Architect in year 4 (back when I did it) was £14,000.

But a graduate tax is philosophically very different from a loan and repayment system.

But is a loan a loan if you're not expected to repay it?

filmed in my uni
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9277595.stm

Another sensible avenue for questioning of the new policy: will the new 'market' of different fee levels intensify differences between universities as those with higher reputations get more money and become ever more elite?

The temptation to qualify and then emigrate to Oz would be extremely strong.

"Hi, yes, is that the SLC? Right, it's Neil, yeah- just to confirm I'm still working as a street mime artist, I earned $120 AUD last year"

What's pissing me off is the failure of schools to encourage kids in years <11 to get out and protest, cos we're the people who're gonna be feeling the full blow of uni cuts/no EMA/tuition fees. I'm in Year 11, and me and my mates had to run out the front gate away from teachers to get to one of the protests (got a letter discouraging attending the protests before and after) but there was only about 10 of us in total, with everyone else who planned on going getting caught by teachers before they could get anywhere. Current uni students and even those in 6th form are unlikely to be hit too hard by the tuition fee hike, yet they make up the vast majority of the protests - and i'm not saying they shouldn't be there, but where are the thousands of kids planning to go to uni in a few years time?

Only the students planning on attending uni in sept are safe from the rises. There will however be competing against alot of people for the uni places available as anyone who has put off uni or is even considering it will want to get in before the rises occur. Clearing after the A levels will be hell, knowing that if you don't get a place you will be saddled with an extra £20,000 worth of debt.

What's pissing me off is the failure of schools to encourage kids in years <11 to get out and protest, cos we're the people who're gonna be feeling the full blow of uni cuts/no EMA/tuition fees. I'm in Year 11, and me and my mates had to run out the front gate away from teachers to get to one of the protests (got a letter discouraging attending the protests before and after) but there was only about 10 of us in total, with everyone else who planned on going getting caught by teachers before they could get anywhere. Current uni students and even those in 6th form are unlikely to be hit too hard by the tuition fee hike, yet they make up the vast majority of the protests - and i'm not saying they shouldn't be there, but where are the thousands of kids planning to go to uni in a few years time?

Probably because if they encouraged you to go, and you suffered brain damage from being hit by a police baton, they would be royally fucked.

What's pissing me off is the failure of schools to encourage kids in years <11 to get out and protest, cos we're the people who're gonna be feeling the full blow of uni cuts/no EMA/tuition fees. I'm in Year 11, and me and my mates had to run out the front gate away from teachers to get to one of the protests (got a letter discouraging attending the protests before and after) but there was only about 10 of us in total, with everyone else who planned on going getting caught by teachers before they could get anywhere. Current uni students and even those in 6th form are unlikely to be hit too hard by the tuition fee hike, yet they make up the vast majority of the protests - and i'm not saying they shouldn't be there, but where are the thousands of kids planning to go to uni in a few years time?

Kudos for going.

good point, encourage is the wrong word, but it's still a kick in the teeth not being allowed to join in. Apparently the head actually said we had 'no right to protest during school'...
lol...

more here http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html?camp=localsearch:on:twit:rtbutton

Great pictures, the Boston Herald often seems to have some really strong photos.

Great pictures, the Boston Herald often seems to have some really strong photos.

They've really carved out a niche for their picture page. And the police horse's hoof hitting just where a paintball or bag (? I don't know what they throw) had exploded, somehow is a strong image.