Student Loans: The Debt
Amortisation: The Monster
Note added
23.05.2017
The Labour party has pledged to abolish student loans if it is elected to form a government. Students who have recently graduated or those within the last 4-5 years are saddled with massive debts and will be disadvantaged with respect to students of today. The only way to avoid a potential rebellion is if all student debts are retrospectively cancelled. The unfairness of anything else is massive. It is claimed that students from wealthy families pay off all debts early (no surprise there - DA).
It would be no surprise if a graduate accepted a lower salary to both secure a job and avoid paying back the mountainous debt.
From this autumn, Universities in England will be allowed to charge up to £9,250 a year for undergraduate courses. Tuition fees will increase every year with inflation. Students can take out loans to cover tuition fees, which are paid directly to the university. The university needs no money of its own, it is up to the student to arrange the loan (effectively a third party - DA). They can also take out loans for living costs - with the amount that can be borrowed decided by means testing. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to get the loan.
Parents are expected to cover any costs above this maintenance loan (and how do the poorer families do that - DA). Interest on loans, which is rising to 6.1% this year (and will continue to rise -DA), is charged from as soon as the students begin courses. But the loans are not paid back until after graduation and when former students earn more than £21,000 (if they can geta job as an overqualified graduate - DA). The rate paid back is 9% of your income over the £21,000 threshold. If you do not finish repaying within 30 years (which ends first, the mortgage or the student loan? Assuming you can afford both for many, many years - DA). The rest of the loan will normally be written off.
The average amount owed by university graduates in England averaged £44,000 last year, figures from charity the Sutton Trust suggested. Total outstanding student debt in England was at £76bn.
There are lower levels of fees in Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland there are no tuition fees for Scottish students (there are for English students. The UK is still a union - DA). There have been rows in Scotland about the gap in the ability to access university between rich and poor students.
BBC Radio 4's Today has been informed (Nick Clegg) that under the repayment system put in place by the LibDems, no graduate paid fees up front (just arrange a loan to cover it - DA) and Labour's changes would see people "who have never been lucky (unlucky? - DA) enough to go to university" (maybe that should be lucky enough to not go to university? - DA) subsidising those who do (bizarre - DA).
"Let's be very clear what this is for - it is to relieve graduates in the future of the need to make any contribution to their university education while, and here is the odd choice, not reversing a lot of the very punitive and aggressive benefit cuts which will affect some of the poorest in the country," he said. "If the choice is between the poorest and some of the richest graduates of the future, I would choose helping the poorest."
Only Scotland is charging no tuition fees (i.e. not charging for tuition fees - psychologically inept phraseology - DA) for Scottish students, although research suggests Scotland (does it? - DA) also has a bigger access gap between rich and poor students than the rest of the UK.
Responding to Labour's tuition fees pledge, the Conservatives said: "Only by getting Brexit right will we be able to help young people get on in life and make the most of their talents" (had to get this in somehow even if VERY crudely - DA).
The Labour party panders to the young while the Tories suck up to their rich donor friends
Officially sanctioned non-repayment of a debt does not mean that the debt does not increase. It can just mean that the unserviced ‘loan’…
grows
and the increasing debt grows with it. Perfect symbiosis: parasite/host.
The principle can be illustrated by assuming repayment is triggered before the end of the three (or more) year course. In fact, from Day 1 of Year 1 (Y1). Explicit detail is not explicitly communicated and amounts to withholding salient information (major failure of government).
Day 1 Y1: £9,000 (debt)
- £9000 + amortised monthly interest on £9,000
- £18,000 + amortised interest from Y1 + amortised interest on £18,000 (includes second bite of Y1 'cherry': amortisation of amortised interest)
- £27,000 + amortised interest accrued from (Y1 + Y2) + amortised interest on £27,000 (includes third bite of Y1 'cherry' + second bite of Y2 'cherry': further amortisation of already amortised interest through amortisation).
- £27,000 + amortised interest accrued from Y1 + Y2 + Y3 + amortised interest on £27,000 and now including the amortised interest from Y1 (first and second and third bites), Y2 (first and second bites) and Y3 (first bite only).
the amortised yield just gets
bigger and bigger and bigger and...
The system is not sustainable. Even after only a few years the (all bad) publicity, revulsion and contempt for whatever Label is 'responsible' could not be hidden. The elitist society is reborn. The Label is immaterial. By definition. The result is the only concern. Strangulation and subjugation.
An individual's finances are key. Control that and the people are controlled. Absolutely. And working harder for less. Already, as the population (consumer) continues to 'uncontrollably' grow the conditioning to work later into life continues. Life expentency (in terms of age only) increases as the quality of life continues to decline. The consequence of a longer working life means there will eventually be a larger number of old people after their working capability is ultimately ended. The growing number of an old 'older population' cannot be sustained by the younger (old) generation. Logically, the conclusion is that people will work onto the day they die and so there will be no 'pensioners' (retired people). The system would ultimately fail and could never work to a conclusion. But...
- Between now and the future much will be changed. What and when? Only the created elite architects being kept in luxury by the working class could know. They wouldn't know yet. The parasite isn't that smart and is not capable of thinking that far ahead. Usually, just a day-at-a-time.
- If this assessment is wrong then that could only be a good thing. Well, better, perhaps. But if the principle is closer to the undeclared truth then it’s just horrid. Money rules the people. On prison Earth from where there is no escape. Truly there is no escape from the would-be (global) governing elite. They would confer advantage upon themselves at the expense of (and removal of advantage from) the non-elite.
Society may not end up quite as described in a Kafkaesque of Orwellian-type future, but certainly the rich must get richer with greater advantage while the poor get poorer with any potential for advantage removed. Control tied to subjugation both continue to increase as the non-elite work harder and for less (cuts and savings). Until the day that they die.
Someone who is dead does not feed
from the cake and every (elite)
survivor then gets more
The next step would logically be a ‘class-type’ of warfare within the elite. In classic Animal Farm mode everyone is apparently equal, though it’s patently obvious this is not the case. It starts again once the intra-fighting has eliminated the poor classes. The inter-fighting then begins. The war is taken to within the ranks of the ‘elite’.
The monster is the delusion of an immunity.
It then suddenly comes alive
and it's got a nasty bite
and it's got a nasty bite
The rise to the top continues, but what’s at the top? What is there to attain? It doesn’t matter as the war is over and the entire human race majority has been imprisoned. That future is not now, but ever moves onwards towards it. The optimal position would be to maintain the middle ground and have an ‘elite’ that controls a reduced, but tightly controlled, worker-class. Those that actually provide. True parasitism and the elite remain in their delusion fuelled by their own wealth.
The ethos behind an over-qualified nation is clearly designed to attract finance from overseas. It’s highly lucrative and the UK-education system is paraded as ‘exceptional class’. This is the illusion. The ‘honeytrap’ to entice money towards the UK and it’s so crude. How else can ‘A’-level grades continue to rise in successive years. Are school ‘A-graders’ simply becoming genetically more able? Or is the system being manipulated?
- An immigration squeeze could involve heavy losses for colleges and universities if students are turned away from the UK: the number of visas potentially declined. International students bring up to £10bn into the UK economy every year and foreign students are highly lucrative. This illustrates the need to create the illusion of excellence.
Originally, the class system kept people’s aspirations low and there was little incentive to go on to higher education: ‘that’s not for the likes of us’. The drive to encourage foreign students has led to the apparent rise in standards in England. The ‘success’ in importing overseas finance has been at the cost of creating the belief in the native English students that they have a real chance in life. Potentially, another betrayal by using the indigenous students to attract those from overseas. The class system engineering has possibly ‘backfired’. To stop the influx of home-students they are just being ‘priced out’.
posted by Louis Brothnias @ 12:17 pm
<< Home