The Politics Thread

[Harry Genshaw]

you've already been told, Tango - you really shouldn't be buying the Sun every day!

I leafed through a copy in the butty shop today. There was a story about Rory McIlroy and his new girlfriend. Riveting stuff with a headline similar to;

Rory invited his birdie to tee. They've gone a fairway but will he bunker?

[Worthy4England]

you've already been told, Tango - you really shouldn't be buying the Sun every day!

I leafed through a copy in the butty shop today. There was a story about Rory McIlroy and his new girlfriend. Riveting stuff with a headline similar to;

Rory invited his birdie to tee. They've gone a fairway but will he bunker?

That was begging for a "hole in one" ending...

[KeyserSoze]

Selling student debt to universities, then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28528824" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

Well, recent history tells me that a market for the buying and selling of loans that people have no chance of paying back couldn't possibly go wrong.

[KeyserSoze]

wonder how it'll be graded? S&P graded debt by Uni!

[Lord Kangana]

I spoke to a financial advisor the other day. Out of interest, I asked her whether University fee debt would be taken into account when applying for, amongst other things, a mortgage, as Vince Cable had promised it wouldn't be. She said, and I quote directly "Of course it will, the first cases have already appeared". We are building an economy on debt, debt and more debt. Its f*cking idiotic. It'll all end (again) in tears.

[thebish]

I spoke to a financial advisor the other day. Out of interest, I asked her whether University fee debt would be taken into account when applying for, amongst other things, a mortgage, as Vince Cable had promised it wouldn't be. She said, and I quote directly "Of course it will, the first cases have already appeared". We are building an economy on debt, debt and more debt. Its f*cking idiotic. It'll all end (again) in tears.

b....b....b....but Vince had a letter from the banks saying that it definately maybe might not possibly perhaps in some cicumstances on the whole in theory some time in the future going forward not be taken into account...

if two students meet - and partner up - and later try to buy a house together - they could easily be starting with 70-£80,000 of debt between them

[BWFC_Insane]

I spoke to a financial advisor the other day. Out of interest, I asked her whether University fee debt would be taken into account when applying for, amongst other things, a mortgage, as Vince Cable had promised it wouldn't be. She said, and I quote directly "Of course it will, the first cases have already appeared". We are building an economy on debt, debt and more debt. Its f*cking idiotic. It'll all end (again) in tears.

b....b....b....but Vince had a letter from the banks saying that it definately maybe might not possibly perhaps in some cicumstances on the whole in theory some time in the future going forward not be taken into account...

if two students meet - and partner up - and later try to buy a house together - they could easily be starting with 70-£80,000 of debt between them

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

[thebish]

interestingly and allegedly..



Graph - from the Spectator

The Office for National Statistics found that the coalition had borrowed £430.072 billion since it took over, whereas the last Labour government managed to borrow £429.975 billion in 13yrs.

so much for getting rid of the "borrow-more" culture at the heart of government...

[Lord Kangana]

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

It would seem so

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mort ... tgage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

I spoke to a financial advisor the other day. Out of interest, I asked her whether University fee debt would be taken into account when applying for, amongst other things, a mortgage, as Vince Cable had promised it wouldn't be. She said, and I quote directly "Of course it will, the first cases have already appeared". We are building an economy on debt, debt and more debt. Its f*cking idiotic. It'll all end (again) in tears.

b....b....b....but Vince had a letter from the banks saying that it definately maybe might not possibly perhaps in some cicumstances on the whole in theory some time in the future going forward not be taken into account...

if two students meet - and partner up - and later try to buy a house together - they could easily be starting with 70-£80,000 of debt between them

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

It's not really a normal debt though, it's like a personal tax. It shouldn't be taken account in terms of credit, but it should be for mortgages in so far as it affects your net income. It's basically just a third thing to be deducted from your gross after Income Tax and NI.

They're never even remotely getting it back off a lot of the people taking out the £9k loans. There'll be plenty of my lot with the £3k ones they don't get it back from, but with a threshold of £15k they'll get more back from more.

The first year I crept over the £15k threshold I was paying back £9 per month, on a 'debt' that was going up £40~ per month in 'inflation'.

It's more political shifting of the balance sheet. They'll still end up paying for it all, but at the moment it's personal debt, not national debt.

[Prufrock]

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

It would seem so

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mort ... tgage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The taking it into account seems fair enough. When it comes to considering how much you'll be able to afford a month, it's in no-one's interests to just pretend you don't have to pay back money you do have to pay back.

It does beg the question wtf they were doing saying it wouldn't be in the first place (I didn't know they had).

[BWFC_Insane]

I spoke to a financial advisor the other day. Out of interest, I asked her whether University fee debt would be taken into account when applying for, amongst other things, a mortgage, as Vince Cable had promised it wouldn't be. She said, and I quote directly "Of course it will, the first cases have already appeared". We are building an economy on debt, debt and more debt. Its f*cking idiotic. It'll all end (again) in tears.

b....b....b....but Vince had a letter from the banks saying that it definately maybe might not possibly perhaps in some cicumstances on the whole in theory some time in the future going forward not be taken into account...

if two students meet - and partner up - and later try to buy a house together - they could easily be starting with 70-£80,000 of debt between them

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

It's not really a normal debt though, it's like a personal tax. It shouldn't be taken account in terms of credit, but it should be for mortgages in so far as it affects your net income. It's basically just a third thing to be deducted from your gross after Income Tax and NI.

They're never even remotely getting it back off a lot of the people taking out the £9k loans. There'll be plenty of my lot with the £3k ones they don't get it back from, but with a threshold of £15k they'll get more back from more.

The first year I crept over the £15k threshold I was paying back £9 per month, on a 'debt' that was going up £40~ per month in 'inflation'.

It's more political shifting of the balance sheet. They'll still end up paying for it all, but at the moment it's personal debt, not national debt.

It shouldn't be taken account of in mortgage applications either as a debt. If they deduct your monthly payment for income calculation then fair enough, I suppose.

I watched a program with that Martin Lewis a while ago explaining why people shouldn't worry about student loans and usually not even think about paying them back (other than the amounts that are deducted from salaries). Basically he was saying they didn't matter at all for mortgages etc. Looks like that might be changing. What a mess.

[Lord Kangana]

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

It would seem so

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mort ... tgage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The taking it into account seems fair enough. When it comes to considering how much you'll be able to afford a month, it's in no-one's interests to just pretend you don't have to pay back money you do have to pay back.

It does beg the question wtf they were doing saying it wouldn't be in the first place (I didn't know they had).

They did. Which is why at the time I sat on the fence on the issue.

[Prufrock]

I spoke to a financial advisor the other day. Out of interest, I asked her whether University fee debt would be taken into account when applying for, amongst other things, a mortgage, as Vince Cable had promised it wouldn't be. She said, and I quote directly "Of course it will, the first cases have already appeared". We are building an economy on debt, debt and more debt. Its f*cking idiotic. It'll all end (again) in tears.

b....b....b....but Vince had a letter from the banks saying that it definately maybe might not possibly perhaps in some cicumstances on the whole in theory some time in the future going forward not be taken into account...

if two students meet - and partner up - and later try to buy a house together - they could easily be starting with 70-£80,000 of debt between them

Is this new? Student loan debt definitely hasn't been considered for mortgage or credit applications in the past.....

It's not really a normal debt though, it's like a personal tax. It shouldn't be taken account in terms of credit, but it should be for mortgages in so far as it affects your net income. It's basically just a third thing to be deducted from your gross after Income Tax and NI.

They're never even remotely getting it back off a lot of the people taking out the £9k loans. There'll be plenty of my lot with the £3k ones they don't get it back from, but with a threshold of £15k they'll get more back from more.

The first year I crept over the £15k threshold I was paying back £9 per month, on a 'debt' that was going up £40~ per month in 'inflation'.

It's more political shifting of the balance sheet. They'll still end up paying for it all, but at the moment it's personal debt, not national debt.

It shouldn't be taken account of in mortgage applications either as a debt. If they deduct your monthly payment for income calculation then fair enough, I suppose.

I watched a program with that Martin Lewis a while ago explaining why people shouldn't worry about student loans and usually not even think about paying them back (other than the amounts that are deducted from salaries). Basically he was saying they didn't matter at all for mortgages etc. Looks like that might be changing. What a mess.

That's all they are saying isn't it, unless I've missed something? It's not going to be a deal-breaker in terms of saying 'you're too risky to lend to', it's just , 'oh you have a loan, so our calculations of how much we're willing to lend you need to factor that in'. Given the number of people with them no doubt there'll just be a box they tick and fill in the number and it adjusts it accordingly.

I don't worry about mine for a second. Further, I know people whose parents paid for their student fees but who took out their full entitlement and stuck it in savings. As long as their return beats inflation they're quids in. The problem I have against student loans is two-fold.

1) The argument for them is that those benefiting from a university education should pay for it as they're likely to earn more. Well, why pick on one particular indicative factor for earning more yourself. You're more likely to earn more if you're white, or male, or born to rich parents, why don't we indirectly tax each of these groups proportionally. Are we really saying the state-school educated poor graduate earning £50k should be paying more back in than the private school drop-out who walked into a job at one of his father's friend's firms and now earns £50k? Or, better, do we do what we've always done and collectivise that responsibility and simply say that rich people as a group pay more through their income tax and if we need more revenue, we need to raise it from them as a group instead of continuing the 'I don't use it so why should I pay for it mentality'.

2) I don't worry for a second about my student loan, but it seems people do. There is anecdotal evidence that poor potential students have been put off going to Uni because they do think of it as 'debt' and they do worry about getting into 'debt'. I'm pretty sure application numbers dropped initially (though they may have then increased again). It may be that numbers initially dropped because people rightly decided that certain courses weren't worth it, but there seemed to be no serious consideration that people might be put off, and no attempt to address it. If you're wanting to bring fees in, and there's a serious argument put forward that poorer students might be put off applying on this basis, well the onus is on you to show they won't be. I don't remember any convincing arguments put forward that this would be the case.

As the whole thing has played out I've become more convinced it's simply an accounting trick. Instead of saying the govt will foot the bill, we say the students will pay it back. Now, most of them wont, and the govt will still foot the bill, but up to that point, it's not national debt.

[BWFC_Insane]

That's all they are saying isn't it, unless I've missed something? It's not going to be a deal-breaker in terms of saying 'you're too risky to lend to', it's just , 'oh you have a loan, so our calculations of how much we're willing to lend you need to factor that in'. Given the number of people with them no doubt there'll just be a box they tick and fill in the number and it adjusts it accordingly.

I don't worry about mine for a second. Further, I know people whose parents paid for their student fees but who took out their full entitlement and stuck it in savings. As long as their return beats inflation they're quids in. The problem I have against student loans is two-fold.

1) The argument for them is that those benefiting from a university education should pay for it as they're likely to earn more. Well, why pick on one particular indicative factor for earning more yourself. You're more likely to earn more if you're white, or male, or born to rich parents, why don't we indirectly tax each of these groups proportionally. Are we really saying the state-school educated poor graduate earning £50k should be paying more back in than the private school drop-out who walked into a job at one of his father's friend's firms and now earns £50k? Or, better, do we do what we've always done and collectivise that responsibility and simply say that rich people as a group pay more through their income tax and if we need more revenue, we need to raise it from them as a group instead of continuing the 'I don't use it so why should I pay for it mentality'.

2) I don't worry for a second about my student loan, but it seems people do. There is anecdotal evidence that poor potential students have been put off going to Uni because they do think of it as 'debt' and they do worry about getting into 'debt'. I'm pretty sure application numbers dropped initially (though they may have then increased again). It may be that numbers initially dropped because people rightly decided that certain courses weren't worth it, but there seemed to be no serious consideration that people might be put off, and no attempt to address it. If you're wanting to bring fees in, and there's a serious argument put forward that poorer students might be put off applying on this basis, well the onus is on you to show they won't be. I don't remember any convincing arguments put forward that this would be the case.

As the whole thing has played out I've become more convinced it's simply an accounting trick. Instead of saying the govt will foot the bill, we say the students will pay it back. Now, most of them wont, and the govt will still foot the bill, but up to that point, it's not national debt.

I agree with this though I suppose the argument being that the person described in the bolded part is not using state resources.

You are right on point two. For people who are not used to debt or understanding loans it is a real factor that could put them off.

[Athers]

interestingly and allegedly..



Graph - from the Spectator

The Office for National Statistics found that the coalition had borrowed £430.072 billion since it took over, whereas the last Labour government managed to borrow £429.975 billion in 13yrs.

so much for getting rid of the "borrow-more" culture at the heart of government...

What I take from it is a slowing in the growth of the debt (narrowing of deficit)! You can't go from a budget in double digit deficit (% of GDP) to nothing overnight!

I quickly opened up the OBR's March-14 report and found this one, it works in % of GDP so a nice complementary one would be GDP growth. I'd like to see this vs 2010/2012 forecasts where the lines would cross in 2015, but it does paint a more obvious picture of what they're on about

budgets.png (47.89 KiB) Viewed 1787 times

[Prufrock]

That's all they are saying isn't it, unless I've missed something? It's not going to be a deal-breaker in terms of saying 'you're too risky to lend to', it's just , 'oh you have a loan, so our calculations of how much we're willing to lend you need to factor that in'. Given the number of people with them no doubt there'll just be a box they tick and fill in the number and it adjusts it accordingly.

I don't worry about mine for a second. Further, I know people whose parents paid for their student fees but who took out their full entitlement and stuck it in savings. As long as their return beats inflation they're quids in. The problem I have against student loans is two-fold.

1) The argument for them is that those benefiting from a university education should pay for it as they're likely to earn more. Well, why pick on one particular indicative factor for earning more yourself. You're more likely to earn more if you're white, or male, or born to rich parents, why don't we indirectly tax each of these groups proportionally. Are we really saying the state-school educated poor graduate earning £50k should be paying more back in than the private school drop-out who walked into a job at one of his father's friend's firms and now earns £50k? Or, better, do we do what we've always done and collectivise that responsibility and simply say that rich people as a group pay more through their income tax and if we need more revenue, we need to raise it from them as a group instead of continuing the 'I don't use it so why should I pay for it mentality'.

2) I don't worry for a second about my student loan, but it seems people do. There is anecdotal evidence that poor potential students have been put off going to Uni because they do think of it as 'debt' and they do worry about getting into 'debt'. I'm pretty sure application numbers dropped initially (though they may have then increased again). It may be that numbers initially dropped because people rightly decided that certain courses weren't worth it, but there seemed to be no serious consideration that people might be put off, and no attempt to address it. If you're wanting to bring fees in, and there's a serious argument put forward that poorer students might be put off applying on this basis, well the onus is on you to show they won't be. I don't remember any convincing arguments put forward that this would be the case.

As the whole thing has played out I've become more convinced it's simply an accounting trick. Instead of saying the govt will foot the bill, we say the students will pay it back. Now, most of them wont, and the govt will still foot the bill, but up to that point, it's not national debt.

I agree with this though I suppose the argument being that the person described in the bolded part is not using state resources.

You are right on point two. For people who are not used to debt or understanding loans it is a real factor that could put them off.

I know that's the argument, that's why I don't like it. That's what I mean about the 'I don't use it, why should I pay for it mentality'. If someone has private healthcare, should their tax bill be lower because they don't use the NHS? What about people who don't go to the dentist? Some people would answer 'yes' to both those questions, which is fair enough, but it's not the country I want to live in. Clearly there's a line at which everyone starts answering 'yes', I don't think even many smokers would disagree with taxes aimed to relieve the burden they put on the NHS for example, but healthcare and a university education are the sort of things I think we should be offering free to everyone. They make a real difference to people's lives, and shouldn't be dependent on how rich you or your parents are.

[BWFC_Insane]

I know that's the argument, that's why I don't like it. That's what I mean about the 'I don't use it, why should I pay for it mentality'. If someone has private healthcare, should their tax bill be lower because they don't use the NHS? What about people who don't go to the dentist? Some people would answer 'yes' to both those questions, which is fair enough, but it's not the country I want to live in. Clearly there's a line at which everyone starts answering 'yes', I don't think even many smokers would disagree with taxes aimed to relieve the burden they put on the NHS for example, but healthcare and a university education are the sort of things I think we should be offering free to everyone. They make a real difference to people's lives, and shouldn't be dependent on how rich you or your parents are.

Toughie this because I do broadly agree, whilst at the same time thinking that healthcare is for the absolute benefit of everyone (ok some will not ever need it but they're probably in a tiny minority and ANYONE can walk into a GP surgery or hospital and be treated at any time) whereas University Education certainly is only for a percentage of the population - unless everyone gets a degree which de-values them.

Perhaps the argument should be that a certain amount of further or higher education is available to everyone for free. But then that gets complicated.

However the point is that if you go to University and get a better job as a result you end up paying more tax anyhow through a higher salary. So that shouldn't be an issue. The problem is that more people are going than the economy can support so often you don't get a better job. It is a fine line what is a personal choice that the individual should fund and what isn't I guess.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The problem with it for me is that suddenly the government decided everyone (or at least lots more) should go to Uni. This obviously got expensive. Everyone was sold the idea that to get on in life you needed a degree. The result being lots of people doing either pointless degrees, or were mediocre candidates for Uni anyway. Lots of people with degrees came into a job market not necessarily needing them. IMO it would have been better to focus on getting more people doing useful vocational courses rather than getting a degree so you can be a trainee manager at Tesco.