In reply to XXXX:
> People are 'anti-student loans' because they have to pay them. Generally, people in favour are people who've never had to pay them because they benefited from free education or never went.
I have a student loan, in case you were inferring that is why I don't understand the opposition to them.
> Why am I anti them?
> 1) Divisive and unfair a. Graduates with £36k of debt are competing with graduates with 9k of debt. Sometimes, children within the same family are leaving university with life changing amounts of debt and reasonable debt.
> 2) Divisive and unfair b. Graduates with debt with the same job as someone without (common in pay graded jobs in the public sector) are earning the same but take home 10% less a month. They compete for the same houses, the same goods and services but have less money to do so with and are priced out.
There are very few graduates now who don't have student loans so I don't think this argument holds true. A graduate now will not be competing for the same jobs as someone who graduated in 1998, the last year without tuition fees. Yes, some people are from rich families and were paid through uni by parents etc but these are in the minority. Is it also 'unfair' that these same people probably have better cars than you and I? No. Equality of outcome is a utopian ideal.
> 3) The interest. People who've never paid a student loan write off the interest as 'paltry' but people who've had one know that combined with the high repayment thresholds this interest means your capital compounds very quickly. The interest starts after your first year at uni and if you have a year out, 5 years of interest could have been added without you earning. Once you do earn, all but the very top earners won't earn enough to cover the interest every month so it compounds further until you have progressed up the career ladder.
There isn't any interest on a student loan. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. The loans are index linked to ensure that they don't diminish in real terms but you don't pay interest on them/
> 4) People who claim it's affordable because you only start paying when you earn enough. These people miss the point that you will probably never pay the capital off, more so for the newer loans. I borrowed ~12k. It was £14.5k before I started a job and at the current rate it will have taken me 14 years to pay off. Imagine how long it will take to pay off £36k with a higher threshold. I pay a few hundred pounds a month that I would otherwise be putting in a pension. This debt does mean something for my future, regardless of what you think.
The counter argument being that your choice to go to university will probably mean that you will earn higher salaries throughout your working life than someone who didn't. Why should the taxpayer subsidise your tertiary education to allow you to earn more and contribute to a pension? There is a separate discussion about whether so many people should be encouraged to go to university, and whether the value of degree level qualifications are lessened as a result but that is not what this thread is about.
> 5) It makes university subject a financial consideration. Only degrees that pay are now worth doing. But subjects like art, literature, philosophy are important to a civilised, educated country.
I don't disagree but not sure why finite tax resources should be used to pay for them (further than they already do). Would you rather pay an extra couple of hundred pounds a month in tax now that you are earning (and still not be able to contribute to a pension) in order to allow free higher education at point of delivery? Because, in simple terms, that is the choice.
> 6) It's a tax in all but name. But a tax that only applies to people under a certain age. It should be retrospective.
People under a certain age who chose to go to university fully cognisant of the financial implications.