Hey guys! So this is spontaneous, although I would like to write this well as I am to send this blog off as a link to many different people including some MP's as I think it's important that they at least have the option to see an average students view of the Student Loan. I am also aware that some people don't go to university and they may see it as a choice that we have made, including the financial burden of the loan, for you people, we do choose to go to University, we don't choose to receive what we do from the student loan. Anyway, here I go.
I believe the system that Student Finance England use at present an unfair way regarding the way loans are given out. Now there are reasons why I regard this the case and I shall be explaining them and then what I would change about them. I shall also be making an e-petition which I shall link at the bottom of this blog for all you people who agree with me to sign.
Student Loans and The Means Test
My generation seem to come from an age where everything has been means tested around our parents income. I can still remember EMA and what I remember from this are the people that received the £30 a week. I remember a lot of the people who got this bragged about it, unfortunately the people that bragged about having £30 to go and spend (and 99% of the time not a penny of this expenditure was on educational resources but the latest games, alcohol and cinema tickets) had parents that didn't work. I had a friend who was one of these people and what annoyed me most wasn't the fact he got £30 a week but that his parents didn't work out of choice and he was being rewarded over people such as myself getting considerably more money than me, which he spent on games, because my parents worked when his decided years before to give up employment years before. My parents weren't earning particularly much, especially after tax, my dad being a Methodist Minister whilst my Mum worked part time as a care worker. This prevented me from EMA but my parents couldn't afford to give me £30 to support me. And my opinion stands now with the student loan.
The same person I mentioned I can use as a classic example here with their student loan. We are both going to the same University and last year we lived together (although he has recently decided not to talk to me as I asked him back to help when it came to cleaning the flat). He got around the £7,000 mark, yet he also got a bursary from the University of Plymouth itself because of his parents low income, his bursary was over £900. Now fair you may say, people need money to get by at University, yet I got a £300 bursary and a loan of less than £100 over £6,000. My parents can't afford to make up the difference so once again it feels like he was getting rewarded for the fact his parents don't work. At the end of the day, just because someones parents earns so much it doesn't mean that the student profits thanks to their parents. We aren't our parents, the money they earn therefore doesn't go into our bank accounts and when we're not at home it's not money that buys us food. Therefore how is it even fair to give us so much less because our parents have jobs, not amazingly well paid jobs at that. I also have friends at Uni who I am living with next year who get even less. Around the £5,000 mark. Now after rent, that would be around the £600 mark over three terms, a whole University year, now Ian Duncan Smith may claim he can live on the costs of benefits, but try living on less than £20 a week and tell me it's fair.
So what do I think is fair, I think the only fair way is removal of the means test. All students should get the same amount, it therefore means that there are no people showing off that they have more money because their parents don't work, it also will mean people aren't struggling on less than £20 a week relying on family handouts to survive at University. It would solve the issue of parents having to give money to their children constantly because they are earning money, not that much money at that. It's ridiculous. The system needs to be fair. That is my aim to get through whilst writing this post. The one thing I would add in is that I also know different people have different distances to travel and I believe that the majority use trains, I do think that regarding termly trains a system where a percentage of the train journey can be claimed back from a system would be beneficial for students especially given the current system where many people get very little.
Before I move on to my second part, I noticed this is an area where people will go and say "get a job", well I tried all summer so far in the Gedling/Nottingham area, I looked and could only find commission jobs, I did have a go at it, but I wasn't skilled at selling a charity door to door, only a few people can and if you can't sell it enough you actually end up losing more than you earn as you are paid per sale. I have my opinions on these companies which I will keep mainly for another day but I thought being paid on commission whilst doing twelve hour shifts and a lot of the time losing money on transport etc was fairly degrading especially when you knocked on the doors of those people that were just incredibly foul and rude, which unfortunately you get. There were no jobs going that were willing to give me a chance (if you're reading this and thinking "your CV must need major improvement, I assure you I believe it is very good at saying what I have done, however I am more than willing to send it to you should you email me). But I do agree that for many people who get these jobs on commission, it can feel degrading, especially in an economic climate where people don't want to sign up to give £10 more a month to a charity however good they may be.
Student Rent Regulation
Now I believe the first idea I gave is a fairly simple and logical idea to implement, now although I feel this is not as simple I feel that this may well be one of the only fair ways to go regarding how much rent students are paying. First of all I am going to give you a simple sum of my rent next year per term.
Student Loan: £6004 / 3 = £2001.25
Rent: £1440
Student Loan - Rent = £561.25 (rounded to £561)
Term 1 - Four Months - £561 / 4 = £140.25 / 4.5 = £31.16
That folks is my weekly budget before I take out a £40 train journey, my railcard (which comes up for renewal in December) and any course costs such as items for my dissertation, lectures and seminars, which would considerably lower that £561. You probably notice that the main expense here is clearly the rent of my room within the house. A huge amount. Now I remember hearing that rent should be about 50%, it is now way above this. My theory for this is that the houses should all be checked by the University. The houses ranked A (the ones in very good condition) should charge a maximum of 50% of the student loan, a house ranked B (good condition) should charge a maximum of 42.5% of the student loan and a house ranked C (satisfactory condition) should charge a maximum of 35% of the student loan. A radical change? Yes, but one that see's that students get two things.
1) Enough money to live on for the year from their student loan without to much panicking.
2) The option to save more money by going for a lesser property and essentially getting what you pay for (this comes from living in a property that was not as good as first thought with the viewing etc last year).
Conclusion
Both of these policies together create a feeling of safety for students, a feeling that is lacked with some students at the current time. I believe many students including myself spend a long time worrying about how much money we may have for the next week. Whether we can go out and do anything enjoyable, whether it be a trip to the pub or hiring a 5-a-side pitch for an hour, I'm not talking about really expensive leisure. As I'm sure you agree, it is nice to go to sleep feeling financially safe. Something students don't get to do a lot nowadays, especially on loans like myself (or like some friends, even less).
I am also aware of two facts people may say, so I shall answer them now.
How much should this Student Loan without Means Testing be?
Well I look at the rent in Plymouth first, I gave you a pretty average amount in the £1440 per term, that's less than what my rent was last year marginally. However there are 9 people in this house and lowering the rent to £1000 would still see the owner receive £27k a year just from one household! If it was £1500 per term we are talking of them receiving in excess of £40k a year for a 9 person house. A lot of this is due to inflation and the factor that the competition rises together there is no competitor trying to give a good house for cheap rent in a decent location for students really. So although I don't think landlords should lost too much, I don't want to see many thousands of people in debt they'll never get out of (although with £9k tuition fees it could be argued this is the case), therefore I would say between £2200 and £2400 per term. I would look at the first term though and be aware it is a month longer than the second and make sure that the student loan realises this. If the first term was £2400, the second £2200 and the third £2000 the rent would be a maximum of £3300. Not bad income for a landlord I would presume and not too badder sums for a student.
Therefore in answer to the question I am going to say around between £6600 and £7000 with a rise with the rate of inflation every year. It isn't much more than we are giving to some today. The loan would not decrease for third year (I have learnt that this happens, for no legitimate reason either, apparently our term finishes earlier, funny the exams often finish later than first and second years, making the year longer)
Landlords aren't going to be happy with this proposal
When it comes to this comment, I have to be honest, the landlord is still making a huge amount of money. The landlord often charges for the unnecessary months in Plymouth of June and July, exams end in May, the summer ball is in May 90% of the time, so why do we pay two months more anyway. Therefore I think if the landlord feels they are losing money, perhaps the contract can be shorter and end at the end of June, given I am unaware of University's hosting exams in July.
Do you feel the same way about the student system as I do? Do you feel that Student Finance needs some reform? Then email your MP, you can even send this blog and hopefully the issues with the current Student Finance system can get some recognition.
PLEASE NOTE
I have created an e-petition, however I am currently waiting for it to be approved. I shall be adding the e-petition here when it is done. If you want to sign it please follow me on twitter @totalJPM and I shall let you know the link when it is ready.
Remember, there is no way that anything will happen about this if we do nothing, act now!
Showing posts with label uk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uk. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Thursday, 4 July 2013
A Response To Professor J Meirion Thomas' Article In The Daily Mail.
The NHS, in my opinion the greatest thing that this country has ever done for it's people. From a day when Governments may well have seemed to have cared. Free healthcare within the United Kingdom for the poor as well as the wealthy. As well as the British, the National Health Service has cared for many people who have come to our shores from different nations around the world, these people often have come to the nation looking for a better life, a better job and various other incentives that the United Kingdom can offer. Many are willing to take jobs that us British see below us. A very small percentage may move to the country purely to get help from the health system, but it would only be a small amount, just as a small percentage move here because it is unsafe for them to live in their country anymore, I've met people in that situation before and I've got to say, considering sending these people back to a land where they would surely die shouldn't even cross the minds of people within this country. It's inhumane.
So imagine what I thought when I read a consultant named Professor Thomas writing an article for the Daily Mail, a paper known for scaremongering the people within this country about the Governments plans regarding the NHS for people who are from countries outside the European Union. First of all I was not actually aware of the Governments proposed policy, but secondly this so called Professor's opinion, which I found totally absurd.
The NHS is one of the things this country has got right since the Second World War, that statement could be regarded as opinion, but I would regard it as a fact, even more so when you look over the Atlantic at the United States where healthcare is paid for. You hear stories of people from the USA regarding people who can't afford healthcare. For instance, twenty percent of people did not get the needed specialist care that they required because of the expense. Possibly more worryingly twenty-eight percent of these people who had a chronic medical condition (such as diabetes and heart disease) did not actually fill in their prescription or skipped some of their doses because they couldn't afford for these drugs (Source:UPI.com). Now I'm glad that right now Britain has not gone down a route that America has, my Grandparents are diabetic and luckily thanks to the way we run our healthcare at this current time, they can have regular check-ups and get their prescription, for free thanks to their age. The current prescription cost should they have been under 60 and working is £7.65. Personally I believe prescriptions should be free for all people and not just have groups of people exempt from the cost, however maybe I'm wishing to much from this Government in this economic climate. The fact that some people don't pick up their more expensive prescription in America is genuinely incredibly concerning. People with diabetes who don't get their prescription and take the right doses of insulin for instance can end up in a diabetic coma, which could possibly lead to death, all because healthcare companies have made the price out of these peoples reach. The possibilities of what can happen to people taking medication for heart disease are quite obvious and can also lead to death. Therefore charging beyond reach for anyone isn't humane, it seems like it's an indirect version of manslaughter.
Getting through that then, why should workers outside of the EU be paying for healthcare from this country. Well for a starter, let's say the person comes over from a country like Iraq or Afghanistan, both countries named because we have injured many of their civilians since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How can we go humanely go to people from these countries and refuse them healthcare. We owe a duty to these people because we decided to go in and bomb their homes, the argument of the legality of either war is invalid in this, the fact that we have injured and killed many people from these countries is however valid. So imagine if we went to these people and charged them £200 of more for their healthcare in this country. It's wrong, especially if they had something severely wrong with them, whether it was picked up before they were in this country or not. Some of these people who settle from foriegn countries have spent so much getting here and trying to find somewhere to live that finding £200 (or more as Professor Thomas would suggest) would be difficult. People from poorer countries may also have big families, having done geography at A Level one of the modules we studied was to do with population, it seems that poorer countries have a higher birth rate (as well as death rate in the majority of these nations), which is why the population of the world is increasing. So for a hypothetical case here, let's argue a family comes over from Egypt, the family isn't well off but has a desire to get away from all the troubles going on with the confused leadership of the country as well as the violence that has seemed to trouble Egypt on and off for the last few years, this family has a father and mother along with four children. This family would have to fork out £1,200 for their healthcare after the struggles and stress of moving over to the UK, pressures such as claiming their visa's, finding a home and actually getting across to the country, all of these not being cheap.
Another issue for people like the family I have created for this point would be the fact that this Government doesn't want to give them benefits, not in the same way as they would give benefits for people who come from the United Kingdom (who have already suffered benefit cuts, regardless of how hard it is to get a job at the moment), so finding the £200 each would be even harder to do, after all these people need to buy food and pay for electricity, water and gas as well. So for some people who move to this country it's making life even harder for them. How is this fair? These people didn't choose to be born in the countries they were born in, some didn't have much choice in leaving and many of these people aren't particularly well off.
And what if these people can find jobs, earn money and pay taxes? Should these people who then would be contributing as much as the working British person have to pay for a service that the people born in the country, or a EU nation get for free? Surely the answer is no. These people are carrying out a job, maybe not for high wages, but still a job and with a job comes tax. The only way it could even be considered fair for these people to have to pay for health care on top of this is if they have a large chunk of their tax taken off, because if they're paying for their healthcare on top then why should they be made to pay taxes that people who get their healthcare without directly paying for it, have to pay to keep the service running? There is no reason for these people to have to pay taxes and a fee. It's simply not fair.
They may have chose to come to the UK because of a reputation of the country being fair, a reputation that lies deep within the foundation of policies such as the National Health Service and Legal Aid. Being a Criminology and Law student I am aware with the cuts surrounding the Legal System as well as these proposed changes to the Health Service. These are two of the areas where Britain made it's name for being a fair country, why should we change these things, things we're proud of?
There is an alternative I can think of, an alternative that wouldn't be popular within the millionaires who sit on their green bench, soon to get a pay rise. The alternative would see either a tax rise for people earning a high bracket of income, or maybe these people would like to pay £200 each extra towards their healthcare, unlike the people that they are actually trying to make pay this money. As for Professor Thomas, I'm sure he can take his scaremongering and use it to encourage Parliament to vote for the richest people in the country to pay more towards their health. If I was in the richest ten or twenty percent I would have no problem paying towards healthcare. You may ask why and I shall answer that. This country should be looking out for everyone within it, now that means the homeless, the people who have settled here from another country and the poor. These people are just as important to the name of Great Britain as those that are rich, whatever profession any of these people are in. If Great Britain stops looking out for these poorer people, whether they come from this land or another, the the Great in Great Britain should not be used anymore.
One thing is for sure, we can all thank the National Health Service for something, the people in many of these hospitals do a great job every day saving many lives. I thank them for this, without them my Uncle would not be around anymore. Therefore I would like to dedicate this blog post to the people that work in these hospitals, the doctors, nurses, receptionists, porters, the lot. I would also like to dedicate this article especially to those at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth who saved my Uncle's life. Thank you.
So imagine what I thought when I read a consultant named Professor Thomas writing an article for the Daily Mail, a paper known for scaremongering the people within this country about the Governments plans regarding the NHS for people who are from countries outside the European Union. First of all I was not actually aware of the Governments proposed policy, but secondly this so called Professor's opinion, which I found totally absurd.
The NHS is one of the things this country has got right since the Second World War, that statement could be regarded as opinion, but I would regard it as a fact, even more so when you look over the Atlantic at the United States where healthcare is paid for. You hear stories of people from the USA regarding people who can't afford healthcare. For instance, twenty percent of people did not get the needed specialist care that they required because of the expense. Possibly more worryingly twenty-eight percent of these people who had a chronic medical condition (such as diabetes and heart disease) did not actually fill in their prescription or skipped some of their doses because they couldn't afford for these drugs (Source:UPI.com). Now I'm glad that right now Britain has not gone down a route that America has, my Grandparents are diabetic and luckily thanks to the way we run our healthcare at this current time, they can have regular check-ups and get their prescription, for free thanks to their age. The current prescription cost should they have been under 60 and working is £7.65. Personally I believe prescriptions should be free for all people and not just have groups of people exempt from the cost, however maybe I'm wishing to much from this Government in this economic climate. The fact that some people don't pick up their more expensive prescription in America is genuinely incredibly concerning. People with diabetes who don't get their prescription and take the right doses of insulin for instance can end up in a diabetic coma, which could possibly lead to death, all because healthcare companies have made the price out of these peoples reach. The possibilities of what can happen to people taking medication for heart disease are quite obvious and can also lead to death. Therefore charging beyond reach for anyone isn't humane, it seems like it's an indirect version of manslaughter.
Getting through that then, why should workers outside of the EU be paying for healthcare from this country. Well for a starter, let's say the person comes over from a country like Iraq or Afghanistan, both countries named because we have injured many of their civilians since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How can we go humanely go to people from these countries and refuse them healthcare. We owe a duty to these people because we decided to go in and bomb their homes, the argument of the legality of either war is invalid in this, the fact that we have injured and killed many people from these countries is however valid. So imagine if we went to these people and charged them £200 of more for their healthcare in this country. It's wrong, especially if they had something severely wrong with them, whether it was picked up before they were in this country or not. Some of these people who settle from foriegn countries have spent so much getting here and trying to find somewhere to live that finding £200 (or more as Professor Thomas would suggest) would be difficult. People from poorer countries may also have big families, having done geography at A Level one of the modules we studied was to do with population, it seems that poorer countries have a higher birth rate (as well as death rate in the majority of these nations), which is why the population of the world is increasing. So for a hypothetical case here, let's argue a family comes over from Egypt, the family isn't well off but has a desire to get away from all the troubles going on with the confused leadership of the country as well as the violence that has seemed to trouble Egypt on and off for the last few years, this family has a father and mother along with four children. This family would have to fork out £1,200 for their healthcare after the struggles and stress of moving over to the UK, pressures such as claiming their visa's, finding a home and actually getting across to the country, all of these not being cheap.
Another issue for people like the family I have created for this point would be the fact that this Government doesn't want to give them benefits, not in the same way as they would give benefits for people who come from the United Kingdom (who have already suffered benefit cuts, regardless of how hard it is to get a job at the moment), so finding the £200 each would be even harder to do, after all these people need to buy food and pay for electricity, water and gas as well. So for some people who move to this country it's making life even harder for them. How is this fair? These people didn't choose to be born in the countries they were born in, some didn't have much choice in leaving and many of these people aren't particularly well off.
And what if these people can find jobs, earn money and pay taxes? Should these people who then would be contributing as much as the working British person have to pay for a service that the people born in the country, or a EU nation get for free? Surely the answer is no. These people are carrying out a job, maybe not for high wages, but still a job and with a job comes tax. The only way it could even be considered fair for these people to have to pay for health care on top of this is if they have a large chunk of their tax taken off, because if they're paying for their healthcare on top then why should they be made to pay taxes that people who get their healthcare without directly paying for it, have to pay to keep the service running? There is no reason for these people to have to pay taxes and a fee. It's simply not fair.
They may have chose to come to the UK because of a reputation of the country being fair, a reputation that lies deep within the foundation of policies such as the National Health Service and Legal Aid. Being a Criminology and Law student I am aware with the cuts surrounding the Legal System as well as these proposed changes to the Health Service. These are two of the areas where Britain made it's name for being a fair country, why should we change these things, things we're proud of?
There is an alternative I can think of, an alternative that wouldn't be popular within the millionaires who sit on their green bench, soon to get a pay rise. The alternative would see either a tax rise for people earning a high bracket of income, or maybe these people would like to pay £200 each extra towards their healthcare, unlike the people that they are actually trying to make pay this money. As for Professor Thomas, I'm sure he can take his scaremongering and use it to encourage Parliament to vote for the richest people in the country to pay more towards their health. If I was in the richest ten or twenty percent I would have no problem paying towards healthcare. You may ask why and I shall answer that. This country should be looking out for everyone within it, now that means the homeless, the people who have settled here from another country and the poor. These people are just as important to the name of Great Britain as those that are rich, whatever profession any of these people are in. If Great Britain stops looking out for these poorer people, whether they come from this land or another, the the Great in Great Britain should not be used anymore.
One thing is for sure, we can all thank the National Health Service for something, the people in many of these hospitals do a great job every day saving many lives. I thank them for this, without them my Uncle would not be around anymore. Therefore I would like to dedicate this blog post to the people that work in these hospitals, the doctors, nurses, receptionists, porters, the lot. I would also like to dedicate this article especially to those at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth who saved my Uncle's life. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)