Student debt to cost 100bn - surely the NHS is in greater need
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...n-says-angela/

Couldn't believe the staggering figure clearing historic student debt is Likely to cost the tax-payer. If this figure is anywhere near correct it should not happen.

Student debt has gone wrong
with 6.1 % extra interest added on now,
and Corbyn is going to put more money into the Health Service

Yes Big Debts

Should NEVER have happened in the first instance what motive could there be for putting that millstone round the necks of young people?
Sickening that they got away with that, it needs wiping the tory parasites can feed elsewhere hopefully not their usual goto victims the young, poor, disabled and vulnerable.

it does not need wiping. Education is free up to the age of 19. If people want to be high earners it is their responsibility to contribute. They are still likely to earn more than most so why on earth should lower earning tax-payers pay their debts. There are other priorities for the tax-payer.

Everyone benefits from an educated workforce, they have the skills needed by business therefore they are a benefit to society. They also earn more and pay more tax... win win.

The highly educated often do become the high earners = more tax to the government.

The highly educated often become future employers = more tax to the government.

Educating people is an investment for the future economy of this country.

It wouldn't be so bad if they reduced the ridiculous interest rate.
As to students paying for uni education, I can't see why the taxpayer should pick up the bill. You have a choice to go or not, however there should be more proper apprenticeships available to give another option.
More students from lower paid families go now, so it is not a deterrent.

Sorry, I'm not convinced by that. If the majority are likely to have such earning potential they can afford to contribute. If such people are in the minority then I question that the few could support the cost of free education for all.

Plus it has been stated that it would lead to limiting numbers going to uni which would be counter-productive.

I agree that helping those at the lower end of the earning spectrum with apprenticeships is money better spent and likely to lead to more success and improved earning potential for the many.

Of course it's not a deterrent, bright less well off kids still have ambition, the ethical question is is it right to exploit them in this way?
It should be criminal to agree terms of a loan and then ramp up the interest if it was anyone other that this corrupt bunch of shysters there would be uproar :/

What is this? Gentrification of our universities...Maybe they could have poor doors for the kids who have to rely on loans? :rolleyes:

The tax payer shouldn't be picking up the bill because that would have an unnecessary impact on the vast majority of people. Government spending comes first and foremost out of newly created money (the central bank which they own). Tax comes later to partly recover that debt but there is no time scale on QE and providing its not flooding the market, and of course it wouldn't be if it was paying for further education, it could, if the government played its cards right, be a debt written off.

the problem with our present government is, they are not good economic managers. They can of course afford to pay for further education, just as they can afford a better education for our school children, better hospitals for the sick and better pensions to all those people who diligently paid their national insurance contributions all their working lives. What this government is doing is a misleading and socially destructive lie.

I disagree - they are not being exploited. They will likely earn enough to pay for their loan without struggle. If they don't they will have to pay less or nothing. It seems a fair system to me.

100 billion could help more people in other ways.

Isn't the money saved from paying into the EU going to the NHS :hehe: what's happening to that?

Yes Blame New Labour

This only ****s over young people anyway! Who cares about them? They're too busy sleeping in to vote or go to Uni anyway! What is an investment? I don't know, All I know is that the young people and new labour are to blame for EVERYTHING.

It got put into the 'When we need to bribe a party to stay in power' fund. Would Brillo agree that the money spent on that bribe would have been better spent on the NHS, I wonder?

Student debt clearly discourages people from attending UK universities, which will in turn cause a brain drain, and lead to less people studying things such as, for instance, medical sciences.

What do you do if not enough people are training to become doctors?

Blame Jeremy Corbyn, obviously.

Or muslims.

How is this relevant to my point about hiking the terms post agreement? That is exploitation pure and simple.

The numbers going to uni will apparently have to be restricted if there is free education for all.

:rolleyes:.

Fixed that for you <3

1bn compared to 100bn. Er!

Ta.

Ah, so you're avoiding talking about an ACTUAL waste of tax payers money while speaking at length about what is essentially an investment IF Labour under JC win an election and can successfully push this through parliament.

Do I really need to spell out the fatal flaw in your logic here? Surely you can see it, right?

labour introduced them? talk to your own party