Am I the only one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mitch9128

[quote author=monday21 link=1290677602/30#33 date=1291141403]With respect £3000 to £9000 max fees per year equates to £27,000 in the future form the current £9000 for a three year degree course. I am confident enough to bet my mortgage on the following prediction. When the rise in fees are introduced independent reports will conclude that there is a significant fall in the numbers of school leavers from poor backgrounds applying for university places. I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but I want to live in a society where equality of opurtunity exists for all.

---

I doubt there will be a fall in those from poor backgroungs Ken, simply put the benefits will be there to assist them, the rich will see no real impact on them either, it will be the average joe who suffers.
A few things that concern me, the tories are not implementing this because of the global recession, the money won't be repaid for many years yet, if ever, so it isn't to 'Help' us all out. So it's obviously something the tories have wanted to implement, cool they can yet again blame it on recession/previous government...again. How will it affect credit scoring if a student then leaves Uni, get's a job and wants a mortgage? £30k is a lot of debt for anyone, surely it will affect when they want further credit/mortgage?[/quote]

As you rightly point out Mitch, the rise in tuition fees which was carried in parliament last Thursday is a Tory policy. The Tories made concessions on this bill in order to keep the Lib-dems on side and push it through. It now appears that school leavers from poorer backgrounds will be exempt from paying fees for the first two years of their course. Sounds great on the face of it but the criteria for eligibility is flawed. To be eligible for this concession a student needs to show that he/her was in receipt of free school meals while at school. Unfortunately, thousands of children who are eligible for free meals, for whatever reason do not apply. In addition, there are huge numbers of parents who are low paid and do not receive the qualifying benefits which would entitle their offspring to free school meals. Call me a cynic, but I am sure this was by design from the Tories. The Tories must be loving this cosy coalition because the Lib-Dems have taken the heat of of them. When the time comes, I hope the shooters target all the proverbial crows. >:(

Quote:

---

If they had a business worth millions, but paid themselves peanuts, then i could believe that. However means testing would show up this money as savings etc...someones telling you porkies.

---

From what I can see (and yes I know you have to be carerful with what you find on tinternet) the award of EMA is based purely on household income and not assets.
People with property try to minimise income (on paper) to reduce income tax. You can do this by taking out a larger mortgage than required, offsetting the interest payments to reduce profits (income) and investing any excess. Any gains made on the investments will then count as CGT (captial gains tax) for which there is an allowance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducatista

Quote:

---

If they had a business worth millions, but paid themselves peanuts, then i could believe that. However means testing would show up this money as savings etc...someones telling you porkies.

---

From what I can see (and yes I know you have to be carerful with what you find on tinternet) the award of EMA is based purely on household income and not assets.
People with property try to minimise income (on paper) to reduce income tax. You can do this by taking out a larger mortgage than required, offsetting the interest payments to reduce profits (income) and investing any excess. Any gains made on the investments will then count as CGT (captial gains tax) for which there is an allowance.

---

Sure, and a lottery win would be savings i.e. income, so you would have to declare it. Unlike a multi million pound business you own, and only pay yourself £500 a month out of. I have heard of such people claiming the top amount of family/tax credits in that situation, thats a loophole that needs closing.

Quote:

---

Sure, and a lottery win would be savings i.e. income

---

No, savings are not income, the interest that is generated from the savings is income.
You can further minimise the income by putting the money into stock&shares, gold etc. as any gains are now capital gains and not income.

People with millions of pounds worth of property can still have little income.
I agree it's daft and something that should be changed.

Duc regardless of whether you think savings are income, they ARE taken into account when calculating any type of benefits. Yes i understand business and property are not taken into account, but savings are.

Quote:

---

Duc regardless of whether you think savings are income

---

I think you are mistaken with your definitions, but it's not me that makes the rules, it's the Inland Revenue and the Department of Work and pensions, so should be fairly easy to check.

You can find a definition of what the Inland Revenue consider as income here (this is her majestys revenue and customs website so I think we can consider it reliable).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/taxable-income.htm#3

You are correct that savings at a certain level can stop you getting many benefits (although they are defined as savings and not income) and savings can indeed generate income in the form of interest.
There are generally capital rules and income rules to claim benefits.
Savings come under capital and interest comes under income.

However for EMA savings are not included in the qualification criteria.

Do you have any information you can point to with different definitions/information?

Are you getting mixed up with the savings themselves and the income generated from them (the interest)? i.e. generally defined as capital and income.

Perhaps we have an accountant who can clarify?

I can't get a definitive on this one Duc, maybe savings are not on the means test form? Either way it needs to be scrapped, it's open to abuse and the incentive is already there for those who really want a decent education.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already as there is a hell of a lot to read back on but instead of overeducating burger flippers of the future with trendy nice to have degrees why are we not pushing apprenticeships? Learn through work , your employer takes you on because they see something in you and in turn pay for your degree by paying you a bit less than your peers and that way they are getting the skill sets they require from someone who wants to do a job in their field of expertise ? It would do away with paying off huge debts at the end of it all, also it would kill the whole 'sorry no experience = no job' issue that many graduates face .

I know I couldn't have got a degree at that age and have got my vocational qualifications in the last 18 years of serving queen and country , I've had almost the student lifestyle of getting hammered over in Germany on cheap booze and lived a party lifestyle when I wasn't working until I had to grow up (eventually!)

Granted not ever employer or vocation is going to be suited to this way of gaining a degree however a lot of companies would actually benefit from this and in turn do away with people flitting between courses because they get bored of the one they are doing. Too many people see a degree as a way of improving yourself without actually doing anything with it afterwards, almost a status thing... If you can afford that then fine pay for it yourself. If you find yourself in the same boat as most tho and requiring it to be paid for by the tax payer I suggest you think long and hard about the financial implications before you commit to 3 to 4 years or more of full time education.

To me tho, earn as you learn or an apprenticeship / scholarship is the best way to deal with a lot of this and in turn it can kill some of the 'trendy nice to have' degrees that are really neither use nor ornament!
Soapbox back in its corner ;)

It's a shame we don't have like/dislike buttons on some of these posts, like on Facebook as I couldn't agree more BT!

Do you think private companies will fork out nearly £30,000 to put employees through a degree and then watch them leave to join another firm?