It’s important to note that even if you are below the threshold, interest is still accruing and adding to your total amt due. In order to have “uni for free”, you must stay below that threshold for all 40yrs. The loan doesn’t go away just because you are below it, it only goes away after 40yrs

It does not change the fact that someone who makes 50k will pay a total of £82,800 (at 2070 per annum) over the course of 40yrs when pymts stop vs someone who makes 100k who will pay a total of £65,700 over 10yrs making the burden higher and longer for lower wage earners.

My apologies. You are correct on the above the threshold amount.

Sir, I do not know what you are talking about. Nobody said the repayment amount per annum changes. The total repayment amount ABSOLUTELY changes based on interest and length of pay back.

And my point still stands. A lower pd person will pay significantly more than someone with a higher salary. And your comment about inflation assumes that their income has also been adjusted for inflation, which is a hefty assumption when most wages do not keep pace with inflation.

30,000 x 9% (0.09) is 2700. My calculations are correct.

100%. As well as anyone who wants a career in lower paid profession such as teaching, media/journalism/communications, social sciences (psychology, sociology, etc), allied health, police, art and design to name a few.

37,800 LESS than one making 30k. That is the issue. It doesn’t matter what you’re paying - interest and/or principal over the course of the loan, it matters that you’re paying. And someone with a lower pd job will pay back much more and be burdened for much longer for the exact same £ borrowed.

5400 per annum. Again, interest is still the same (and again simplifying) at 1600 per year. That means this person is paying down principal by 3800 per year - 3x more than other scenario. This will be paid off in ~ 13yrs. This person making 60k a year will pay a total of ~70,200 - a whopping

to pay off, but will stop at 40yrs given the threshold. That will mean that they are paying a total of 108k of interest and principal. It doesn’t matter what it is, just that it is 108k. Now take same scenario of 50k student loan at 3.2% interest, but this time they make 60k. This person will pay

per year. At 3.2% interest, they will be accruing 1600 per year in interest (I am making this simple and not adjusting for the small pay down on principal annually). That means that they will pay down 1100 in principal per annum (2700 pymt - 1600 interest = 1100 principal). That will take 45 years

This is disingenuous. “You pay hardly any of your loan back” while technically correct in that you hardly pay back the principal, does not mean that you aren’t paying the accruing interest for 40 yrs. Let’s use an example of someone who has 50k in school loans. If they make 30k, they will pay 2700

And yet you took time out of your busy day to post this.

Does anyone know why it is dated 31 February 2026?

Ummm, why is the date signed 31 February 2026?

Why is is signed 31 February 2026?

I am sorry for you. It is equally soul killing to not only have to listen to him, but then listen to every media outlet spew forth the same garbage over and over. There is no rest from it here.

worth of interest. I disagree that this fair as it places a much heavier burden on lower wage earners not because they are paying more in principal, but because they are paying much more in interest due to a 9% across the board repayment.

I am happy that your children are not struggling with their student loans. Unfortunately, that is not often the case. Most graduates do not immediately get the “better jobs”. By the time they are in their 30s or 40s, one hopes that they do. But, of course, by then they will have accrued 10-20yrs

and a physical asset you can either sell or let the bank repossess. Either way, the debt is paid. With a school loan, you either hope to find one of those “better jobs” so the 9% auto repay isn’t killing you or resign yourself to earning under 25k for the next 40 years.

thereby punishing those who make a lower income as they will have to pay more interest in the long run. With mortgages, you can choose the length of repayment, and as a result, choose the amt of interest you pay. And therein lies the difference. With a mortgage, you have options

And remember that if you fall below the 25k threshold, interest is still accruing on the unpaid principal which will also have to be repaid if you begin earning 25,001. The debt only “goes away” after about 40 years. Obviously, the higher the income, the lesser the amount of interest you repay

Back the loan? Or hope to hell the job market improves so that you can get a “better job” so that the across the board 9% automatic repayment doesn’t eat into your food budget? I don’t think it’s a “so what” like you stated to begin with because it isn’t at all like other loans.

And again, I say no. As stated before, if you lose your job, at least you have an asset that you can sell to pay off the loan. While I’ll agree that that isn’t ideal, it is a solution. With this Plan 5 and its 25k threshold, you have the option of what? Taking a crap job so you don’t have to pay

Again, I disagree. To begin, you stated that it was much like the risk of a mortgage. You stated that “if you take a mortgage you take a risk that housing market won’t collapse”. Now, you’re stating that you meant if you lose your job, it will be a major problem. Those aren’t the same things.

Furthermore, if you were to lose the means to pay your mortgage, you have the ability to sell said asset and pay off most, if not all, of the loan. Likewise if the market tanks - you can hold on to the asset until it recovers. What are you going to do with your school loan - sell your education?

No. You decide to go to school and take the loan because you are investing in your future and you believe that you will have the means to pay it off because you went to school. When you get a home mortgage, you already know that you have the means to pay it. Not remotely the same thing.

Doesn’t this pre-suppose that “better jobs” are available? Too many graduates with excellent degrees are not finding those “better jobs”.

In Charlotte, they blasted crying babies all night long.

So, just after an economic walkout, NOW the have something to say? GTFOH with that mealy mouthed response.