Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!

Originally Posted by Damien

Every goverment say they can save money of wastege during an election. I was even watching the first yes minister the other day and the first action was 'to cut wastage'. There may be a bit of wastage (also just because the adverts in the guardian dont contain police, doctors, nurses doesnt mean they are all non jobs).

I am not sure but much money can really be saved on wastage? There may be a way to fund there education savings but something would have to give. Less students or less investment unless the loans are enough to fund the whole thing.

I beg to differ. In my book, 'Diversity Officer' is a non-job. Ensuring 'diversity' (whatever the hell that means) is something that can be tasked to every single employee of the organisation and supervised by existing HR staff, much as it would be in any commercial organisation where we don't have the luxury of hiring people to fulfil ideologically-driven delusions of grandeur.

The IFS has confirmed that the Tories can save what they say they can, if they can remove as much waste as they say they can. I think getting rid of the 'Diversity Officers' should see them on the way to saving a billion or so, and then let's see what else can go. I reckon they can do it.

How much is a commerical intrest rate?

Bank of England Base Rate is 4.75% and a reasonably good mortgage deal would be about 5.75%. Unsecured personal loans start from maybe 8% and credit cards can be anything from 10% to 25%. I would understand a 'low commercial rate' to be perhaps 7%.

I beg to differ. In my book, 'Diversity Officer' is a non-job. Ensuring 'diversity' (whatever the hell that means) is something that can be tasked to every single employee of the organisation and supervised by existing HR staff, much as it would be in any commercial organisation where we don't have the luxury of hiring people to fulfil ideologically-driven delusions of grandeur.

The IFS has confirmed that the Tories can save what they say they can, if they can remove as much waste as they say they can. I think getting rid of the 'Diversity Officers' should see them on the way to saving a billion or so, and then let's see what else can go. I reckon they can do it.

That does sound like a non-job. I said they are not all non-jobs. That example is only one of the jobs advertised.

Bank of England Base Rate is 4.75% and a reasonably good mortgage deal would be about 5.75%. Unsecured personal loans start from maybe 8% and credit cards can be anything from 10% to 25%. I would understand a 'low commercial rate' to be perhaps 7%.

Ok lets work on 7%. Also a student debt of £10,000 (Accomidation is around £2,500 a year x 3 (at least for me) = 7,500 and lets say 2,500 for other living costs over the 3 years (food, drink, clothes) ). Thats £10,000

So how much would a £10,000 loan cost? Take in mind the loans are taking out over the 3 years instead of the whole wack at once. Also £10,000 is without the fees (i dont know if they are simpply scrapping top up fees or all of them)

Originally Posted by Damien

So how much would a £10,000 loan cost? Take in mind the loans are taking out over the 3 years instead of the whole wack at once. Also £10,000 is without the fees (i dont know if they are simpply scrapping top up fees or all of them)

A £10,000 loan with annual interest of 7% generates £700 in interest payments per year, or a little over £58 per month. The actual monthly repayment depends on how many years the loan is repayable over. If we say 10 years, then you also pay back £1,000 of the capital per year, or a little over £83 per month, so the total monthly repayment is a little under £141 per month.

That is, if I've remembered how to do those calculations properly ...

Originally Posted by Chris T

A £10,000 loan with annual interest of 7% generates £700 in interest payments per year, or a little over £58 per month. The actual monthly repayment depends on how many years the loan is repayable over. If we say 10 years, then you also pay back £1,000 of the capital per year, or a little over £83 per month, so the total monthly repayment is a little under £141 per month.

That is, if I've remembered how to do those calculations properly ...

Well....considering I am not very good at maths I'll trust ya

So if the intrest is 7% and theres a loan of £10,000 (which is quite a low loan). It would depend on when you pay it back weither your better off or not and the actual size of the loan. Basically if you live at home and dont pay for living, youre away If you stay at the UNI then you could be worse off . If you get a resonible job upon leaving Uni you would be alright. But what is they want to stay to take there degree on a bit? Or they dont get a job right away? Doesnt this system hasten up the need to start earning

Its all very confusing . As for if the sums add up and if they can afford it i think we should forget trying to understand any of the partys spending plans.

I mean 1) Even genius economists are arguing about it, 2) The economy can change anyway! 3) If the spending wrong, then all the manifestos are rubbish

[punky]

Student loans aren't like normal loans.

You only pay them back if your earnings are above a threshold limit. Its £10,000 atm. Above that, you pay a percentage based on your salary, so if you don't earn, you don't pay. Yup can protract it out as long you like (or can afford to).

Given how the student loans system is nice and fluffy anyway, I wouldn't mind so much an increase from 3% to 7%, if the government would spend the money properly.

Originally Posted by Damien

Well....considering I am not very good at maths I'll trust ya

So if the intrest is 7% and theres a loan of £10,000 (which is quite a low loan). It would depend on when you pay it back weither your better off or not and the actual size of the loan. Basically if you live at home and dont pay for living, youre away If you stay at the UNI then you could be worse off . If you get a resonible job upon leaving Uni you would be alright. But what is they want to stay to take there degree on a bit? Or they dont get a job right away? Doesnt this system hasten up the need to start earning

It could be intended as a disincentive to those who think they can avoid ever paying the loan off by remaining below the repayment threshold?

To be honest, you have to try really, really hard to avoid getting a job if you leave University with a half-decent degree in a worthwhile subject.

[bob_builder]

If we assume that somebody has a £10,000 student loan and they get paid the average graduate salary of around £20,000 . This means that they will be paying £450 a year off the loan. So if the interest rate is around 7% (i.e. £700 per year) the loan will grow and they will never have to pay it off!

[punky]

Originally Posted by bob_builder

If we assume that somebody has a £10,000 student loan and they get paid the average graduate salary of around £20,000 . This means that they will be paying £450 a year off the loan. So if the interest rate is around 7% (i.e. £700 per year) the loan will grow and they will never have to pay it off!

But in 10 years time, the guy will be earning a bit more than £20k. With inflation he'll be earning a lot more, even if he never gets a proper payrise or promotion. Most people will at some point get promoted on and higher, I would have thought.

The loan system depends on 1) How much you take out 2) When you get a job 3) How quickly you pay it back

[etccarmageddon]

Another serious issue which is also close to my heart is the cost of putting old folk into homes. I read in the sun that the conservative manifesto policy is to limit paying to 3 years - ie. after paying 3 years of fees all care will be free.

My opinion on student loans is that it's isnt morally right to add interest that's more than inflation.


"...we will give this guarantee - if you pay for the first 3 years of long term care out of your own resources then a conservative government will pay for the remainder of your care without any means test..."

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...y.listing.page

in the action for older people section page 8.

My opinion on student loans is that it is very difficult to use the word 'moral' in this area!

When I was at University in the early 90s, loans had just begun to appear as a top-up to the Grant and the continuous bleating from the Student Union was 'education is a right, not a privilege'.

Actually, I think it is both, and a loans system of some kind acknowledges both. Yes, it's a right, and our system increasingly ensures that everyone who wants to go to university, and is academically able to go, can do so. However that level of investment in the betterment of an individual confers on that individual privilieges that others do not have (the State has spent £1,000s more on me than it did on one of my classmates, who left school at 18 and went and got a job and started paying taxes). It's not unreasonable for the State to set limits to that privilege and to expect something in return for its investment.

We are no longer in a situation where only 5-10% of school leavers go to Uni. When that was the case the Grant system was eminently affordable. Now we are heading for 50% of school leavers going to Uni (many of them to study worthless qualifications at dubious 'universities', in yet another piece of flawed Labour social levelling) and we have the hugely increased costs that are associated with it.

Do you buy into the arguement that people should not pay for anothers education then? (Your friend who left school and payed taxs?)

[bob_builder]

I believe that a student should not have to pay for their education but that the state should not subsidise their living (or non-student's living for that matter).

That was the case when I went to uni. I got no grant but I did not have to pay any tuition fees, either. I had to pay for my own rent and food, etc. but working for 3 months each summer easily covered that. I had the option of taking out a student loan but I did not need to.

The current situation forces students to take out a loan just to pay for their tuition fees. I would argue that is morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Damien

Do you buy into the arguement that people should not pay for anothers education then? (Your friend who left school and payed taxs?)

Nope, quite the opposite in fact. I'm demonstrating that our system works in such a way that not everyone gets an equal pay-out from the State. I think those who get more do have more of a responsibility in return, but I don't think that extends to everybody paying for what they use. If that were the case then seriously ill people who cost the NHS tens of thousands would have to pay more NI than someone who has a healthy life, which is a bit daft.

I support the idea of a welfare State in which everybody helps everybody else out. But I don't believe in a limitless welfare state.

[keithwalton]

You start paying interest on your student loan from day 1, but you dont know how much it is until a year later when they kindly send you a statement saying you owe us so much 'but its ok you dont have to pay us yet but we will keep on adding interest on it at an ever increasing rate'.

Personally i'd prefer to have a £4000 total loan charged at 7% interest than a £12000 total loan charged at 3%.

They may sound nice in that you dont have to pay it if you cant afford it and all that. But they will add a nice tidy sum on top of it for you. I'm not going to do a phd because I will have 3 years worth of interest added to my loan (around a further thousand, just think what you could do with a grand!)

Edit - Oh I have noticed the big picture plan from the governement regarding education, get as many people into university as you can by lull'ing them into a false sense of security and once there nice and settled jack the cost up!

Just as a random statistic, for the department i'm in, from its annual budget 20% of its annual income comes from the governement, 10% from student tution fees, the other 70% from r&d and consultancy work