"£60,000 pounds is a lot of money to most people"
I agree it's a shitload of cash! what I disagree with is the idea that having £60,000 pounds-worth of "soft debt" as someone already put it should be a disincentive from studying. Incurring this debt has no negative consequences (please someone point some out if I'm wrong), and gives you the chance to dramatically improve your lot in life. You can't lose!

Of course, as has been pointed out, you might be better off not going to university. Having a degree by no means guarantees a better-paying job. Last time I checked, that's life, nothing's guaranteed. What the government are doing is making sure the choice to go to university is still risk-free for the individual without bankrupting the rest of the country in order to pay for it.

It's like a casino where you get to put down 60 grand of someone else's money on red or black. If you win big you get hundreds of thousands of pounds over the course of a lifetime, if you lose, "oh well, pay it off when you can."
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:05, 2 replies)

Is your attitude to debt
the same as everyone elses?

I'm not sure that when I started uni, if fees had been more than nominal, that someone wibbling about student loans only being "soft debt" would have sounded convincing.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 14:17, closed)

I guess that's what I'm asking
Everyone would agree that being in debt is bad. What I'm asking is a debt that you don't have to pay back a debt at all?
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 22:20, closed)

Incurring this debt
means that the vast majority who will earn over £21,000 will pay an extra 9% tax on that proportion of their income for the next 30-odd years of their working lives. They won't pay it off early, I incurred £7,000 of loans and I haven't paid it all off 9 years later.

Its effectively a tax on the children of the middle classes as the rich kids will pay up front, the poor kids won't pay at all.

Why is it fair that two people with the same degree doing the same job for the same wage will get taxed at different rates purely because their parents salaries were different when they were 18? Both have gone to uni and used the same resources, why does one pay more?
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 17:50, closed)

Good point.
That warrants some more thought. Thank you!
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 19:33, closed)