Students Grants Done Away With

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And there we have it, someone else who doesn't understand how this works.

It's not £45k to pay off. It's a small % of your salary, if you're succesful. The £45k becomes fairly meaningless, until you get near the point of settling it.

And as the loan payments only kick in when your income increases above the threshold - to the individual all that happens is that the increase in take-home pay through the wage increase that takes you over the threshold is lost - wholly or in part. Indeed your take-home may not be impacted at all by the loan repayment kicking in. At worse take-home may be reduced a little. At that point the graduates starting take-home pay is essentially re-baselined - and like tax and NI the loan repayment becomes another deduction that goes from the top line and so salary which in effect you never actually see - so never felt the benefit of.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

And as the loan payments only kick in when your income increases above the threshold - to the individual all that happens is that the increase in take-home pay through the wage increase that takes you over the threshold is lost - wholly or in part. Indeed your take-home may not be impacted at all by the loan repayment kicking in. At worse take-home may be reduced a little. At that point the graduates starting take-home pay is essentially re-baselined.

Sorry SILH, but I disagree. "take-home may be reduced a little" just doesn't happen. As you pay a set % of income over a certain point (not on the income before), you can't reduce the amount you take home because of that tax

 

[SocketRocket]

Is that not what's happening already?

On the topic of students, I see the Tories have another barnstorming proposal:
"Foreign students will be banned from working in the UK and forced to leave as soon as they finish course under Theresa May's tough new visa rules"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eresa-mays-tough-new-visa-rules-10385232.html

An astonishingly stupid idea to dissuade the best students from studying and working here, in an attempt (I can only assume) to get somewhere near their target migration numbers which they spectacularly missed previously. But I'd rather net migration continue at the current level than target this young, well-educated, aspirational demographic.

Whats wrong with that?

These people have been given the opportunity to come here and have an education from a better university than their own countries could provide. If they then want to stay here after then they can apply though the existing immigration system so that we can pick the best. If they are from the EU they can stay anyway!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Sorry SILH, but I disagree. "take-home may be reduced a little" just doesn't happen. As you pay a set % of income over a certain point (not on the income before), you can't reduce the amount you take home because of that tax

I have misunderstood the detail of how repayments are made - and in fact it makes things even less of an issue as far as I can see.

The graduate repays the loan as a percentage of the difference between his salary and the threshold.

So let's say a graduate's salary jumps from £17,335 (the threshold) to £21,000. His monthly salary changes from £1444 to £1750. Let's assume 25% deductions. His take-home goes from £1083 to £1312. His loan repayment goes from £0 to £27. This reduces his take-home from £1312 to £1285.

What the graduate sees in his bank account following his salary increase is an increase from £1083 to £1285. What's the problem? I must be missing something.

 

[jp5]

Whats wrong with that?

These people have been given the opportunity to come here and have an education from a better university than their own countries could provide. If they then want to stay here after then they can apply though the existing immigration system so that we can pick the best. If they are from the EU they can stay anyway!

'These people' have chosen to study in our country, and subsidise fees for UK students. They contribute to a diverse and global workforce, bringing great experience and skills with them.

The UK will fall behind other economies if these measures are brought in, and the UK will become a less attractive place for these intelligent people to study and work. Take America for instance, where STEM graduates can live and work for up to 2.5 years after graduation as part of their student visa. Enough time to find a secure job, build experience, contribute to the economy, and sort out a longer term visa.

May can't do anything about the influx of unskilled labour from the EU, so is going after international students, who will contribute to the country, instead in an attempt to reduce the migration figures.

 

[SocketRocket]

'These people' have chosen to study in our country, and subsidise fees for UK students. They contribute to a diverse and global workforce, bringing great experience and skills with them.

The UK will fall behind other economies if these measures are brought in, and the UK will become a less attractive place for these intelligent people to study and work. Take America for instance, where STEM graduates can live and work for up to 2.5 years after graduation as part of their student visa. Enough time to find a secure job, build experience, contribute to the economy, and sort out a longer term visa.

May can't do anything about the influx of unskilled labour from the EU, so is going after international students, who will contribute to the country, instead in an attempt to reduce the migration figures.

How exactly do they subsidise fees for UK students? All they do is pay their own costs, UK students pay a proportion of their costs and the rest is payed by the tax payer.

I still don't follow your reasoning. If they want to stay and work here we have an immigration system that they can apply through, this allows us to select the best of them that fit our skills requirements. Remember many of them will have studied for subjects where we don't have a current need . Also: you are suggesting all foreign students are the very best that graduate from our Universities; some will be very good just as some UK students will be, some will be poor also.

 

[Hacker Khan]

How exactly do they subsidise fees for UK students? All they do is pay their own costs, UK students pay a proportion of their costs and the rest is payed by the tax payer.

I still don't follow your reasoning. If they want to stay and work here we have an immigration system that they can apply through, this allows us to select the best of them that fit our skills requirements. Remember many of them will have studied for subjects where we don't have a current need . Also: you are suggesting all foreign students are the very best that graduate from our Universities; some will be very good just as some UK students will be, some will be poor also.

Because universities charge foreign students a lot more than they charge UK students for a course. So the additional income from foreign students allows then to keep down the cost to UK students.

Also do you have any evidence whatsoever that many foreign students are studying subjects in areas where we don't have a current need?

 

[SocketRocket]

Because universities charge foreign students a lot more than they charge UK students for a course. So the additional income from foreign students allows then to keep down the cost to UK students.

Also do you have any evidence whatsoever that many foreign students are studying subjects in areas where we don't have a current need?

Foreign students pay the full costs for their courses. UK and EU students pay a proportion and the tax payer subsidises the rest so they are not subsidised by foreign students.

Foreign students study in most English Universities and as such will be studying subjects that are not always required, just like UK and EU students. Irrespective of this I said that they are entitled to apply through the current immigration system and if they have skills that are required then they have a chance to work in the UK.