House of Lords reform dropped

[Kuciwalker]

Students are poor.

No they aren't.

[Kuciwalker]

How exactly students leaving university in debt is a good thing for poor people, I have no idea. Are you sure you've thought this through?

It means those poor people haven't had their tax money stolen and given to rich people.

[Kuciwalker]

The ones with student loans are less likely to be so, however.

Only if it was a poor idea for them to attend college in the first place.

If someone is going to find that the debt is extremely burdensome after they graduate, we don't want him going to college.

[kentonio]

It means those poor people haven't had their tax money stolen and given to rich people.

Which would only make sense in a system that wasn't means tested.

[Dauphin]

Instead, the Scots get it all free, it being stolen from the English.

[Jon Miller]

Only if it was a poor idea for them to attend college in the first place.

If someone is going to find that the debt is extremely burdensome after they graduate, we don't want him going to college.

Debt can be very burdensome, even if you expect more per year than what you took out in loans.

You don't know what life will send your way.

Make a simple simulation with a few shocks (new car, medical bill, job loss due to recession/etc) and see that even a student loan similar expected yearly income can be incredibly burdensome.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Which would only make sense in a system that wasn't means tested.

The students simply by virtue of being smart enough to get into university are already well above average in wealth. The system is "means-tested" on your parents' wealth, not your own.

[kentonio]

The students simply by virtue of being smart enough to get into university are already well above average in wealth. The system is "means-tested" on your parents' wealth, not your own.

Are you talking about potential future wealth?

[Kuciwalker]

Debt can be very burdensome, even if you expect more per year than what you took out in loans.

You don't know what life will send your way.

Make a simple simulation with a few shocks (new car, medical bill, job loss due to recession/etc) and see that even a student loan similar expected yearly income can be incredibly burdensome.

People with out college degrees find those difficult to deal with too, Jon

Let me put it this way: if there were no people who found that their college education wasn't providing them much more value than what they paid for it, would you think that was a good thing?

[Dauphin]

Debt can be very burdensome, even if you expect more per year than what you took out in loans.

You don't know what life will send your way.

Make a simple simulation with a few shocks (new car, medical bill, job loss due to recession/etc) and see that even a student loan similar expected yearly income can be incredibly burdensome.

JM

As I understand it, UK student loans have repayment schedule based on earnings - so it is effectively an additional tax rate until the loan is repaid.

I don't know what the percentage is as I've never had a UK student loan, and I don't know if sudden additional costs would cause a problem (as compared to no student loan), but losing a job would not appear to be a problem insofar as repayment of that particular loan is concerned.

[Kuciwalker]

Are you talking about potential future wealth?

There's no such thing as "potential future wealth". Wealth itself is just potential future income; just like the immense human capital possessed by someone who can get into college.

[Kuciwalker]

As evidence for the "human capital really is wealth" framing, observe that in the US lenders advance loans that are effectively collateralized by it.

[kentonio]

There's no such thing as "potential future wealth". Wealth itself is just potential future income; just like the immense human capital possessed by someone who can get into college.

Oh please, the reason for the old UK system was because it was realized that it is considerably easier for children with rich parents to get to university, regardless of intellect or talent. The parents wealth not only tends to lead to a much higher quality education, but when it comes to things like day to day living/travel/opportunities while at university they are much easier to manage for the rich. This creates a much heavier burder on the poor to receive the same chances, which on this side of the Atlantic is something we tend to frown on.

[Jon Miller]

The students simply by virtue of being smart enough to get into university are already well above average in wealth. The system is "means-tested" on your parents' wealth, not your own.

Those students will already do well.

The government is concerned about the human capital which is possibly available. This is not the wealthy (who are already optimizing themselves)

An example of the failures of private education:

http://www.coha.org/the-failings-of-chile%E2%80%99s-education-system-institutionalized-inequality-and-a-preference-for-the-affluent/

Countries with free education serve their poorer members much better (and, from a rational perspective, make more efficient use of their human capital) than those with market solutions (see Sweden/etc).

JM

[kentonio]

As evidence for the "human capital really is wealth" framing, observe that in the US lenders advance loans that are effectively collateralized by it.

We have student loans here too, but it also acts as a deterrent to the poorer kids because if you've come from a world where £20,000 is a fortune, the idea of coming out of university owing that kind of money is a major turn off.