Over 10%Under 10%
Obviously. Because you don't have to pay them up front. Pro-tip: if you become a journalist when you graduate, you can always add a bit of spice to almost any article about young people by adding "because they are unable to afford £9k tuition fees". Nobody will know.
You don't have to pay unless you can afford it. If you're earning below £21k, you pay nothing. If you're earning £25k you pay back £30 a month. Crippling.
No, actually it will just go away if you forget about it. It gets completely written off after 30 years, no matter how much there is left. And it won't get any worse if you leave it to grow. The proportion of your income you repay (9% above £21k) never changes.
Yeah :(Nah :)
From The Independent: Myth 4: "The student loan will affect your credit score" Taking out a student loan does not affect your credit rating and won't show up on any report. When you apply for a mortgage, loan or credit card in the future the only way that these companies can know if you have a student loan is if they ask you on your application. If they do take your student loan repayments into consideration it will likely be used to better calculate your net earnings. In fact, because you pay back less per year under the new system you could turn out better off. http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/9-common-myths-about-your-student-loan-8794151.html
Quite right. You need to make sure you pay each month!Nahh forget about it.
Actually it is going to just pay itself.
It automatically comes out of your paycheque. Just like a, um, tax.
Yeah! Tuition fees aren't progressive, like a graduate tax would be.Well, actually...
£9k fees are fairly progressive
Because of the effect of hard-up students not paying off their debt in full before it's written off, the most well-off graduates end up paying a lot more. Note for the pedantic: Unfortunately, there is a slight hiccup, in that the richest pay less than the slightly less rich. That's because student debt, for some reason, accrues interest at 3% above inflation. There are two ways to fix that. You could peg the interest to inflation, which would cost the taxpayer extra. Or, you could increase tuition fees, so that the richest carry on paying for the full 30 years, which would cost the taxpayer less. Guess which one of those two is more politically toxic.
Tuition feesGraduate tax
In fact, it seems the only reason the government didn't decide to call it that is because of a legal technicality. In the words of John Rentoul: "Another argument that weighed heavily with Clegg and Vince Cable, when they decided to keep the Blair-Clarke model and to triple fees to £9,000, was that a graduate tax could not be levied on graduates living overseas. Had they opted for it, English and Welsh universities would have been required to offer free places to all EU students with no way of paying for them." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/on-tuition-fees-we-aint-seen-nothing-yet-9673647.html
McVities' lawyers managed to persuade a judge that a Jaffa Cake is a good, proper VAT-exempt cake.
No, it clearly is not a cake.
Full moon... half moon... total eclipse!YOU BETRAYED ME
YOU BROKE YOUR PROMISE HOW CAN I EVER TRUST YOU AGAIN I'M GOING TO BURN EFFIGIES OF YOU AND SHOVE FAECES THROUGH THE LETTERBOX OF YOUR FAMILY'S HOME FOR YOUR CHILDREN TO FIND
It was about Nick Clegg wasn't it?
YOU BETRAYED MEI guess maybe people should have left his letterbox alone
By the way, do you have any clingfilm? I don't think I can have another slice of this Jaffa Cake or I'll explode.I suppose not
Because this system is effectively a graduate tax.
Yes and it's better
Because now you people on low incomes pay much much less, and people later in their careers who are more comfortably-off pay more.Yes but it's worse
...what with the fees being triple what they were and all.
Under the old system, we had to pay back 9% of everything we earned above £15k. That means a much greater burden. Plus, it was less progressive, because the rich paid no more than the poor, and sometimes less. It really did resemble a debt much more than a tax. And on top of that, the new system has allowed universities to educate many more people than before, with dramatic rises in students from disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds.
Because not only would that amount to a big old tax cut for already comfortably-off grads, and diddly squat for struggling grads... it would also have to be paid for by the taxpayer, including all those struggling grads!
Wow. Labour, that's low.
You're proposing a policy which sounds good, but which actually makes the worst-off graduates even worse off.Good-oh, tax-cuts for the wealthy.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are getting shit for implementing a policy which sounds bad, but which actually makes the worst-off graduates better off.
Clegg got the substance right and the spin wrong
While Labour are busy getting the spin right and the substance wrong.Clegg is a liar.
Sometimes I like to have a scoop of ice-cream with a slice of Jaffa Cake.
The cake is a lie.