Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the lib-dems are shit

King Biscuit Time said:
Quick Q - It seems what Vince Cable is saying is that less well-off graduates will pay less that they do now, and that wealthier ones will pay more. But when the effective 0% interest rate is gone, doesn't that mean that the poorer students (who'll be paying for longer) end up paying more in total?
Click to expand...
Yes. A city boy will be able to pay the whole lot off with a single bonus and incur bugger all interest. Anyone who's mug enough to work for the public sector, or a women who is silly enough to damage her career prospects by having children, will be paying back a big chunk for most of their working lives, and incur much more interest as a result.
 
ymu said:
Yes. A city boy will be able to pay the whole lot off with a single bonus and incur bugger all interest. Anyone who's mug enough to work for the public sector, or a women who is silly enough to damage her career prospects by having children, will be paying back a big chunk for most of their working lives, and incur much more interest as a result.
Click to expand...

Is this the case? Did Vince 'Mable' Cable not get his add on early repayment penalty thing attached to the bill? His proposal is that anyone attempting to act as you've described would be hit by a early repayment charge.
 
No it's not the case, it's subtler than that - according to Browne anyway.

He says those who pay early incur additional costs in the same way someone paying off their mortgage early does.
 
London_Calling said:
No it's not the case, it's subtler than that - according to Browne anyway.

He says those who pay early incur additional costs in the same way someone paying off their mortgage early does.
Click to expand...

So there would be an early repayment charge. Which is what I said. Someone Cityboy paying it off in one shot on a bonus would be hit by a penalty for paying it off quickly.
 
But there's paying it off early (which there never used to be any incentive to do, because interest was effectively nil) and theres being required to pay it off faster (ie cheaper).
 
Whatever I said in my previous 11,972 posts is no longer feasible, and by remarkable coincidence, the exact opposite is fair and affordable. Backwards not forwards! This party never had any gears!
 
kyser_soze said:
Is this the case? Did Vince 'Mable' Cable not get his add on early repayment penalty thing attached to the bill? His proposal is that anyone attempting to act as you've described would be hit by a early repayment charge.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone else will know the details, but if you honestly think that any early repayment penalty will amount to the equivalent of 20+ years worth of interest on a £20k debt, you've not been living on the same planet as the rest of us for quite some time. :D
 
Is it possible for the lib dems to sink any lower than this? Oh I'm looking forward to their MPs getting grilled to death at future public forums. The fucking scum.
 
Seven Twelve thousand An unlimited amount is basically the same as zero anyway. The fact that it is infinitely more is simply a measure of the worsening economic climate. I do don't do don't know what you're complaining about.
 
The Review will analyse the challenges and opportunities facing higher education and their implications for student financing and support. It will examine the balance of contributions to higher education funding by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers. In doing so it will consider a wide range of potential policy options.​

The 'wide range of potential policy options' was either remove the cap on fees or have a graduate tax. It would seem theat the Lib Dems are taking their lead from the reports lead author in being economical with the truth; more of the same TINA rubbish.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. seems this research from Leicester University hasn't figured in Browne or Cable's reading; table one shows the disproportionate effect of increasing fees on poorer students.
 
Surely someone whose parents pay upfront pay significantly less then a poorer student who has to take out a loan at all.....how can that be right?
 
They just destroyed a local lib-dem (bristol west) on htv by counter-posing his pre-election words with today. It's all about the search for fairness. Off you go.
 
_angel_ said:
Surely someone whose parents pay upfront pay significantly less then a poorer student who has to take out a loan at all.....how can that be right?
Click to expand...

Even more to it than that, as Nick Robinsons blog says:

Critics still say that his package is not progressive enough and could actually result in those earning, say, 30k to 45k paying back more than those on higher incomes. The reason for this is that, under Browne's proposals, graduates will pay 9% of their earnings each year, as they do now. However, unlike now, the debt owed will increase over time as Browne is proposing that graduates start to pay the real rate of interest on their debt. Thus, if Daddy can pay off your debt or if you can pay it back quickly because you're earning a lot, you will end up paying less for education than someone who does it steadily over the years - just like any other debt, in fact.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/focus_on_the_mi.html
 
Lovely beads of sweat appearing on Cable's forehead when Jon Snow waved the pledge at him. :D

His response was basically "we're in government now so we can't get away with the naive fantasies we indulged in when we were just trying to get people to vote for us."
 
butchersapron said:
Even better, he's just cried that it won't effect people until after the next election :D
Click to expand...

Most of their uni seats now looking vulnerable. Sheffield Hallam? But where will students vote? Hardly for Cameron. Need a punish Clegg candidate (not necessarily Labour, perhaps much better if not).
 
elbows said:
Even more to it than that, as Nick Robinsons blog says:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/focus_on_the_mi.html
Click to expand...
9%? Fucking hell.

A back of the envelope calculation suggests that a graduate tax of 0.1% for every £1k spent on fees and subsistence would provide a more than adequate return. I can't see any reason not to extend that to any form of training past the age of 18, which would allow people to access opportunities that are just completely unavailable right now, nor any reason why the cost should not be shared by the employers who are getting the training for free.

Back of the envelope:

mean UK income ~£27k (higher for graduates, at around £30k)
0.1% of £30k = £30
years in work ~ 40
40 x £30 = £1200 paid back over a lifetime, for every £1000 spent
 
articul8 said:
Most of their uni seats now looking vulnerable. Sheffield Hallam? But where will students vote? Hardly for Cameron. Need a punish Clegg candidate (not necessarily Labour, perhaps much better if not).
Click to expand...

Students are registered in their university constituencies, which are mostly marginals. Oh joy. :D
 
There's quite a few they picked up with student votes on anti-war, anti-fees basis - like Manchester Withington. Quite a few of their MPs will be voting against this package to hang onto their own jobs. The problem is some only realistically face Tory opponents - which is another reason why we need AV. So people can vote against the coalition and its policies without handing seats directly to the Tories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
likesfish
Mark Duggans Son pleads guilty to gun crime
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Spymaster
Spymaster
R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
242
Views
7K
ghost boy
ghost boy
nogojones
Mark Drakeford standing down
Replies
28
Views
1K
weltweit
weltweit
_Russ_
This little shit.....
Replies
19
Views
870
stavros
S
Back
Top Bottom