Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
renting til I die

£80,000 In Student Debt. Can We Borrow £100,000 For Our First Home?

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/12157842/Weve-got-80000-in-student-debt.-Can-we-borrow-100000-for-our-first-home.html

Contains the classic line,

“I just don’t like paying rent, I feel like I’m throwing money away every month,” Mr Sharpe said.

Renting at a 6% yield. Not the worst and who knows maybe they might be able to find a cheaper rental? Maybe then it will feel like they are paying for a service and not like throwing money away!

Edited by renting til I die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/12157842/Weve-got-80000-in-student-debt.-Can-we-borrow-100000-for-our-first-home.html

Contains the classic line,

Renting at a 6% yield. Not the worst and who knows maybe they might be able to find a cheaper rental? Maybe then it will like they are paying for a service and not like throwing money away!

...but love paying interest...to corporate bankers.

Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article talks about 35 year mortgages as "sensible" because the monthly repayment is £130 cheaper than his rent, as if it's the 1950s and a job is for life.

The chance to fix this in 2007 is long gone, another collapse is imminent.

Maybe we should have voted for Brown after all.

Scray thought !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chance to fix this in 2007 is long gone, another collapse is imminent.

Maybe we should have voted for Brown after all.

Scray thought !!!

It's becoming clear who ever you vote for once in power they love keeping prices high , I recall Vince Cable being vocal about prices until he was in the coalition then he went very quiet on the subject ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's becoming clear who ever you vote for once in power they love keeping prices high , I recall Vince Cable being vocal about prices until he was in the coalition then he went very quiet on the subject ...

He went more than quiet.. One of the reasons the lib dumps were hounded out at the last election, utterly spineless two faced gits they were.

But you are right , they are all the smae and feeding from the same trough, at least the 3 main parties and unconfirmed in reards UKIP, thoguh their choice of housing representative is indicative of more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article talks about 35 year mortgages as "sensible" because the monthly repayment is £130 cheaper than his rent, as if it's the 1950s and a job is for life.

He is a science teacher, which is as near to a job for life as you'll get.

35 year mortgage for a grotty doer upper in Bradford, living the dream!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really illustrates how much things have changed in a generation.

2 FTBs on a joint income of £46k looking to buy a house for around £120k or 2.6 times their income. That would have been perfectly normal 20 years ago and is actually a lot more reasonable than a lot of the stories I have seen. The £80k debt makes a bit of difference, however....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this line -

"Apart from student loans (of 80 f'en thousand pound) the couple, who currently have combined earnings of around £46,000, have no debt"

Student loans are so completely different to conventional debt (your obligation to repay a conventional debt is independent of your income, and it won't go away if you just sit and wait long enough) that it makes perfect sense to treat them separately. Chances are that the woman in particular is earning below the repayment threshold and will get her "debt" wiped without ever having to repay a penny, so in that sense it's a purely fictitious number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Student loans are so completely different to conventional debt (your obligation to repay a conventional debt is independent of your income, and it won't go away if you just sit and wait long enough) that it makes perfect sense to treat them separately. Chances are that the woman in particular is earning below the repayment threshold and will get her "debt" wiped without ever having to repay a penny, so in that sense it's a purely fictitious number.

Its still a debt that needs paying back, as a teacher presumably he will get promotions and be on a decent salary before his monthly loan repayment is taken out.

A generation will be in a position where they won't be looking to take on extra responsibility as the extra pay will just get eaten up by the student debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A generation will be in a position where they won't be looking to take on extra responsibility as the extra pay will just get eaten up by the student debt.

Also the extra pay invariably isn't enough to make taking on the extra work worthwhile. There's simply no incentive to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Student loans are so completely different to conventional debt (your obligation to repay a conventional debt is independent of your income, and it won't go away if you just sit and wait long enough) that it makes perfect sense to treat them separately. Chances are that the woman in particular is earning below the repayment threshold and will get her "debt" wiped without ever having to repay a penny, so in that sense it's a purely fictitious number.

Indeed.

Most of this "student debt" mallarkey will end up on BoE b/sheet at some point. It was never designed to be "paid back".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Most of this "student debt" mallarkey will end up on BoE b/sheet at some point. It was never designed to be "paid back".

Agree. It's obviously designed just to pump money into the system. A grotesque distortion for which there will be consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Student loans are so completely different to conventional debt (your obligation to repay a conventional debt is independent of your income, and it won't go away if you just sit and wait long enough) that it makes perfect sense to treat them separately. Chances are that the woman in particular is earning below the repayment threshold and will get her "debt" wiped without ever having to repay a penny, so in that sense it's a purely fictitious number.

It's a tax. Graduates who had a student loan pay 9% more on their income over £21,000 than any who didn't.

The LibDems wanted to call it a "graduate tax" but the Tories couldn't bear to be seen putting up taxes (too obviously) so they called it a loan.

It was actually intended that a lot of it should be paid back. It's just that the drongoes who thought up the scheme were wildly over-optimistic about future wage rises, particularly among graduates.

The job market being what it now is (lots of people in work, most of them earning peanuts and unlikely to earn more) most of the student "loans" already given out won't be paid back. That's one reason the threshold has been frozen, contrary to previous assurances - in order to scrape back a bit more tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. It's obviously designed just to pump money into the system. A grotesque distortion for which there will be consequences.

I'd go so far as to say that saddling people with debts that can never, on average, be repaid, counts as financial abuse by depriving people of their independence. If the intention was a "students' QE" then it ought to have been made clear from the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tax. Graduates who had a student loan pay 9% more on their income over £21,000 than any who didn't.

The LibDems wanted to call it a "graduate tax" but the Tories couldn't bear to be seen putting up taxes (too obviously) so they called it a loan.

It was actually intended that a lot of it should be paid back. It's just that the drongoes who thought up the scheme were wildly over-optimistic about future wage rises, particularly among graduates.

The job market being what it now is (lots of people in work, most of them earning peanuts and unlikely to earn more) most of the student "loans" already given out won't be paid back. That's one reason the threshold has been frozen, contrary to previous assurances - in order to scrape back a bit more tax.

It is a tax - at the moment. I would liek to see the tax rate set in stone when you take on th debt rather than changing during the period.

Rather than doing it sanely - setting it as a tax, and only letting HE expand if x% of their grads were paying enough cost to cover the cost. Bliar decided to grossly expand the number of graduates - despite evidence that 60%+ of grads did not benefit financially from going to Uni.

What ought to happen is the risk should be split 3 ways - student, Uni/lecturers and Gov.

If a grad fails to reach, say, 150% of average earnings, than the loan defaults and Uni and Gov take a hit too.

At the mo, the financial risk of someone doing an Art History degree is born enitrely by the student. The Gov gets to avoid dole payments and the Uni gets make-work scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a tax - at the moment. I would liek to see the tax rate set in stone when you take on th debt rather than changing during the period.

Rather than doing it sanely - setting it as a tax, and only letting HE expand if x% of their grads were paying enough cost to cover the cost. Bliar decided to grossly expand the number of graduates - despite evidence that 60%+ of grads did not benefit financially from going to Uni.

What ought to happen is the risk should be split 3 ways - student, Uni/lecturers and Gov.

If a grad fails to reach, say, 150% of average earnings, than the loan defaults and Uni and Gov take a hit too.

At the mo, the financial risk of someone doing an Art History degree is born enitrely by the student. The Gov gets to avoid dole payments and the Uni gets make-work scheme.

Why should government -for which read taxpayers - be part of the risk at all?

Universities should be required to charge what they need to to cover their costs and students free to decide whether or not those fees are an investment worth making.

Vice Chancellors seem to labour under the belief that they are worth CEO salaries, let them run as a business and succeed/fail as their talents dictate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go so far as to say that saddling people with debts that can never, on average, be repaid, counts as financial abuse by depriving people of their independence. If the intention was a "students' QE" then it ought to have been made clear from the outset.

Well there is this weird obsession with govt debt and debt/gdp ratios etc at present.

Its a bit like £375bn of govt debt ending up on BoE b/sheet. When it was issued it was govt debt. Now its sitting in a sort of no-mans land in a slightly arms length pocket of govt called the central bank. At some point Adair Turner or whoever succeeds Carney will decide it would be a good idea to convert some of it to zero coupon debt or even just monetise it.

Students get their education today, govt pretend it isnt on their balance sheet, BoE tidies it all up in 50 years time, nobody cares very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should government -for which read taxpayers - be part of the risk at all?

Universities should be required to charge what they need to to cover their costs and students free to decide whether or not those fees are an investment worth making.

Vice Chancellors seem to labour under the belief that they are worth CEO salaries, let them run as a business and succeed/fail as their talents dictate.

Because most 18 year are thick as sh1t.

They are being told to go to Uni by the Gov + the educational establishment.

All 3 need skin in the game.

Until the Gov + edu.estab start saying stuff like 'Maybe going to Uni is not you....'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should government -for which read taxpayers - be part of the risk at all?

Universities should be required to charge what they need to to cover their costs and students free to decide whether or not those fees are an investment worth making.

Vice Chancellors seem to labour under the belief that they are worth CEO salaries, let them run as a business and succeed/fail as their talents dictate.

There business is making students employable and increasing their earning prospects over + above what it would have been if they started work from school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   89 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.