The debt clock starts once the 3 year course ends. Interest is added and so the debt increases, but the amount of interest added depends on income (RPI for those earning less than £21,000 and RPI up to 3% for those earning £21,000-£41,000, above that its RPI+3%).
Repayments are made via salary if you are employed, or via self-assessment returns if self-employed. No payments are made if income drops below £21,000. Leaving the UK means that the loan is repaid directly to the Student Loan Company… failing to notify them will result in penalties. The loan lasts for 30 years and then cancelled, whatever the balance.
So let’s suppose you have three years of tuition loans (£18,000) and 3 years of maintenance loans (say £15,000), a total debt of £33,000. In theory if you never work or earn more than £21,000 you will not repay a penny. Hopefully University was inspiring enough and helped to obtain a career in something that is rather better paid than £21,000 a year over time… so most will pay something.
This is where it seems that most of the misunderstanding occurs. Loans, however large are only payable if income is over £21,000. If income falls below this, payments stop, interest continues to accrue. In essence then the mechanics of this are more like an extra tax than a loan.
Perhaps you could think of a mobile phone contract… £30 a month seems pretty “normal” for a phone. So I fail to see how £30 a month is not affordable for a Degree. Of course many graduates would hope and expect to earn much more than £35,000. As they do so, their repayments rise. In fact repayments are calculated at 9% of pre-tax income over £21,000. So a graduate earning £150,000 would pay £11,610 a year or £967 a month (the monthly payments are always rounded down). Of course by that point one would expect the loan to have been repaid anyway.
Frankly I would need to be persuaded (and open to being so) that going to University isn’t affordable under the current terms. However this misses the wider and more substantive political point. Do we want a well-educated society that one day will be “running the country”. Do we view higher education costs as an investment in our own population or not? The argument that better educated people get better paid jobs and therefore pay more income tax applies whichever side of the debate you stand.
It would appear that given the increase in courses and students, most believe that a Degree must provide better choices. In 1920 only 4,357 first Degrees (as in a Degree not a Masters) were awarded, by 1950 the number had increased to 17,337 and by 1970 51,189. 1990 saw 77,163 Degrees awarded and in 2000 this rose to 243,246. In 2011 the number stood at 350,800. This level of growth is pretty dramatic isn’t it. Since 1980 the number of graduates each year has increased five-fold or eighty-fold since 1920. [source: House of Commons Library, SN/SG/4252 27 November 2012]
Naturally a “free” University system is open to abuse, (every system is) the current one is too – its possible that a graduate could avoid repaying the loan by keeping income below £21,000 a year for 30 years… but I imagine that would be rather difficult, when allowing for real life and inflation.
Happy to be challenged, but let’s ensure the facts are right. The notion of starting adult life with a large debt isn’t pleasant, but in practice it isn’t a bad solution to help more people improve their education.
You can read more articles about Pensions, Wealth Management, Retirement, Investments, Financial Planning and Estate Planning on my blog which gets updated every week. If you would like to talk to me about your personal wealth planning and how we can make you stay wealthier for longer then please get in touch by calling 08000 736 273 or email email@example.com