Student loans scam, perpetrated by.. (you guessed it!)

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/


http://www.iaza.com/work/120123C/iaza13186173980700.jpg


Official figures, we are told (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9030043/Thousands-of-EU-students-fail-to-repay-loans.html), show that 45 percent of students from EU countries who were liable to start repaying loans had disappeared or were in arrears as of last April. Thus, the total outstanding debt liable to be repaid by EU borrowers at the end of 2009/10 was £47.4 million, according to the Department for Business (BIS), which published the figures.

But that means, according to Failygraph education correspondent Julie Henry, "If the thousands of students missing or in arrears never pay, more than £20 million would be lost to the Treasury". I am not sure I follow that line of reasoning. At the moment, the debt is already at £47.4 million and, if no more payments are made, more than £20 million will be lost? Technically, that may be correct, but it is an odd way of putting it.


http://www.iaza.com/work/120123C/iaza13186152381500.jpg


However, flash back to February 2009 – nearly three years ago, and you will get a much better idea of what is going on from The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1156663/EU-students-leave-Britain-free-university-education-dodging-repayments.html). It correctly predicted this insult, then telling us that tens of thousands more from the EU were currently at university, having borrowed £124million to cover tuition fees, which then stood at £3,145-a-year.

With 45 percent of EU students who were liable to start repaying loans having now disappeared or in arrears as of last April, therefore, we are exposed to a sum well in excess of £60 million and, as the fees go up to £9,000 a year and more EU students are processed through the system, that sum can only increase.

Back in 2009, though, the Student Loans Company insisted that measures to identify and trace EU students would be in place by April 2010, when large numbers of EU students began to graduate.


http://www.iaza.com/work/120123C/iaza13186156676900.jpg


Compare and contrast this with the statement today from Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, who says that non-repayment by overseas students is "inherent in the system." "Many EU students will never pay back their loans. We were never going to be able to recover loan debts from EU students to the same level as domestic students.

Back in 2009, we were remarking (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/british-loans-for-eu-students.html): "The real question, though, is why we are giving foreign students loans in the first place. And the answer is … EU rules. Under the non-discrimination provisions of the Treaties, whatever applies to UK nationals must also be given to any Jacques, Fritz or Toni who happens on these shores".

The writing was on the wall ever since the ECJ made a judgement on the issue in 2004 (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/11/financing-education-is-becoming-eu.html), and now we are well and truly stuck.

Then, a spokesman for the Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills said trace agents are being used to hunt down students who failed to repay their loans. So, in the darkest regions of Naples, we suggested that, amid the mounds of rubbish, "we can be assured that British interests are being looked after".

Yeah, right! And so the pigs flew over in squadrons.

A government not even fully in control of its student loans policy, what a disgrace.

Go on, tell me the EU doesn't matter and that i'm a paranoid and/or delusional.

Thoughts?

[Chippiewill]

the EU doesn't matter and you're paranoid and/or delusional

-

This seems like less of an EU problem and more of the students living in the EU being complete ***** and running off with our money because their countries about to go bankrupt.

[Adam]

the EU doesn't matter and you're paranoid and/or delusional

-

This seems like less of an EU problem and more of the students living in the EU being complete ***** and running off with our money because their countries about to go bankrupt.

Of course it's an EU problem. It's about people freely emigrating between countries. We have to let EU residents in to our country (especially those pursuing education) and we give them money and they **** off. Stupid EU laws.

The EU is an awful, awful thing.

[cocaine]

the EU doesn't matter and you're paranoid and/or delusional

-

This seems like less of an EU problem and more of the students living in the EU being complete ***** and running off with our money because their countries about to go bankrupt.

i'm not sure whether it's dan posting eurosceptic stuff in this forum, me doing a degree in economics or a combination of both, but it's definitely an EU problem. as adam (quite rightly) above me describes the free movement of labour within a customs union (this being the EU), the european union is a bad thing for britain. we had to sacrifice the right to halt immigration in return for EU membership, and look where it's got us. i'm not too clear on how much control the Government has on this since brussels plays a large part in deciding our laws, but other countries need to sort themselves out. and since more eastern european countries want to join the union too, we can only expect more of this

[Chippiewill]

Britain is required to give university loans to EU students though? I hadn't realised that one. If that's correct then that's a broken system as the loaning should originate from the country which the person has nationality to that way when they return their government has a greater incentive to hunt them down.

[GommeInc]

I'm amazed there are no safeguards to stop this from happening. It's technically fraud. The EU/our Government should lock away these people, if they do not give each penny back as they clearly have no use for it if you drop out. You drop out, you surrender the cash. Simple.

[Adam]

Britain is required to give university loans to EU students though? I hadn't realised that one. If that's correct then that's a broken system as the loaning should originate from the country which the person has nationality to that way when they return their government has a greater incentive to hunt them down.

they have a better chance of getting a loan than us british students because foreigners persuing education are wanted by universities so they can show the government that they have diversity. that and anyone who is refused a loan would cry racism.

but yes, they pretty much go through the same process as british students regarding loans so they have as much (or more taking in my previous point) chance as anyone else even though they can, whenever they wish, move back to their country and not move back.

and they wouldn't extradite them for a measly £9k but they all add up. we should send the countries a bill to be honest.

[dbgtz]

I'd be more pissed off if I actually paid any form of tax myself, but it's still outrageous.

[Chippiewill]

You're VAT free / a hermit?

You'll be picking up the bill later regardless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're VAT free / a hermit?

You'll be picking up the bill later regardless.

VAT? ah yes! thats another thing we have thanks to our membership of the European Union. :P

[Chippiewill]

I personally don't see the problem with VAT?

..apart from dead-weight loss, which is minor.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well its another tax which we could certainly do without, but regardless of that - we only had it imposed in the first place because of our membership of the European Union (then EEC).

[Chippiewill]

£83.3bn per year, I guess they'll just whack up income tax instead?

Just because the EEC forced it isn't really a valid reason to get rid of it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

£83.3bn per year, I guess they'll just whack up income tax instead?

Just because the EEC forced it isn't really a valid reason to get rid of it.

Yes it is, as it wasn't imposed on democratic grounds.

The point is, no tax is a good tax.

[Ajthedragon]

Yes it is, as it wasn't imposed on democratic grounds.

The point is, no tax is a good tax.

No tax revenue means no hospitals, no schools, etc...

VAT would stay regardless of our membership of the EU.

[GommeInc]

VAT isn't that much of a problem. It could happily lowered and as long as all of it goes to good causes for the country it's fine. None of it should go to wasteful organisations or abroad unless there is some surplus to requirements, and even then reimbursements should be involved to give something back to the tax payer/nation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No tax revenue means no hospitals, no schools, etc...

VAT would stay regardless of our membership of the EU.

It-was-put-in-place-by-the-EU-when-such-a-tax-did-not-exist-beforehand-therefore-the-EU-created-a-new-tax-where-one-did-not-exist-previously.

Can I simplify that much more than that? although you are right on one point, none of the current main political parties would abolish VAT even if we left the EU - including the useless Tories. Thats why they themselves need to be abolished. The principle of the argument though is should a foreign power impose taxes or any laws on this sovereign nation? of course not, but your party appears to think so, indeed it encourages it.

[Chippiewill]

Well, even leaving the EU wouldn't cover the costs of VAT since that only nets us £65 billion, although the stimulus to the economy by dropping to say 7% VAT would probably cover the remainder.

[Ajthedragon]

It-was-put-in-place-by-the-EU-when-such-a-tax-did-not-exist-beforehand-therefore-the-EU-created-a-new-tax-where-one-did-not-exist-previously.

Can I simplify that much more than that? although you are right on one point, none of the current main political parties would abolish VAT even if we left the EU - including the useless Tories. Thats why they themselves need to be abolished. The principle of the argument though is should a foreign power impose taxes or any laws on this sovereign nation? of course not, but your party appears to think so, indeed it encourages it.

Such-a-tax-would-probably-have-been-introduced-by-a-future-government-anyway.

Welfare doesn't pay itself. Neither does the deficit.

There is only so much they can cut before taxation isnecessary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Such-a-tax-would-probably-have-been-introduced-by-a-future-government-anyway.

Welfare doesn't pay itself. Neither does the deficit.

Oh that makes it OK then, why don't we just move the remainder of our government over to Brussels because a future government just might do what Brussels does anyway?


There is only so much they can cut before taxation isnecessary.

When are they going to make a start?

[Ajthedragon]

Oh that makes it OK then, why don't we just move the remainder of our government over to Brussels because a future government just might do what Brussels does anyway?

The point is why argue a point with VAT when it would have happened regardless of our membership of the EU. If not that then another mysterious tax.


When are they going to make a start?

Ask those in the public sector who have lost their jobs.

[GommeInc]

Ask those in the public sector who have lost their jobs.
That is indeed a cut in the public sector, but all they are doing is cutting certain services to increase spending in others. Any newspaper, even credible ones, are reporting on how there has been no decrease in Government spending.

[Ajthedragon]

That is indeed a cut in the public sector, but all they are doing is cutting certain services to increase spending in others. Any newspaper, even credible ones, are reporting on how there has been no decrease in Government spending.

Yes, but then you could argue that had the economy not stalled and tax revenue was higher then the deficit would be decreasing. Government spending hasn't really decreased, granted, but overall it hasn't increased. Hopefully once the 'efficiency savings' and reduced spending is in full flow thedeficitwill be decreasing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The point is why argue a point with VAT when it would have happened regardless of our membership of the EU. If not that then another mysterious tax.

Because we don't know that for sure, its like saying the CAP might have been imposed with or without the EU. The point is, the European Union imposed VAT just as its imposed this ridiculous student loans system on us, along with the CAP, employment regulations, the human rights act and the rest of our laws.


Ask those in the public sector who have lost their jobs.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7122543/what-you-need-to-know-ahead-of-tomorrows-growth-figures.thtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8423832/Cuts-What-cuts-Spending-is-rising.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8083036/Spending-review-The-cuts-that-mean-public-spending-soars.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8986379/Europe-cannot-save-the-euro-nor-save-itself-from-the-euro.html

http://www.iaza.com/work/120110C/iaza13186194495500.bmp


Yes, but then you could argue that had the economy not stalled and tax revenue was higher then the deficit would be decreasing. Government spending hasn't really decreased, granted, but overall it hasn't increased. Hopefully once the 'efficiency savings' and reduced spending is in full flow thedeficitwill be decreasing.

Government spending has increased and is increasing even ahead of inflation (see graph).

Oh I do love watching Conservatives try to justify this left-wing government, a government the only reason they can give for supporting is 'to get down the debt' - and they're not even doing that.


That is indeed a cut in the public sector, but all they are doing is cutting certain services to increase spending in others. Any newspaper, even credible ones, are reporting on how there has been no decrease in Government spending.

Indeed, and tinkering (including job losses) happened under Labour aswell so there's not a jot of difference.

[Ajthedragon]

Oh I do love watching Conservatives try to justify this left-wing government, a government the only reason they can give for supporting is 'to get down the debt' - and they're not even doing that.

They've been in power for one and a half years, what were you expecting? Also interesting is that the sources regarding borrowing were written less than one year after the new governments formation, and given the spending review wasn't released until the following October it's between 6-9 months. Hardly expecting miracles were we?

But of course UKIP would sort everything out. :rolleyes:

On the subject of India, I do disagree with the government and we shouldn't be giving huge sums to countries more than capable of looking after themselves. Although it may be our morale obligation given our colonial roots that we do so.

And finally on the subject of Europe, wasn't it the 80 Conservatives who ignored the whips and voted for withdrawal from the EU? Oh and was it David Cameron who vetoed a treaty which left the City of London at risk? Moreover let's not forget the very pro-Europe partners in this coalition, so even if it is in the Conservative's beliefs to leave the EU, they won't be able to do so until they win an outright election and probably gather the support from other sides of the house.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They've been in power for one and a half years, what were you expecting? Also interesting is that the sources regarding borrowing were written less than one year after the new governments formation, and given the spending review wasn't released until the following October it's between 6-9 months. Hardly expecting miracles were we?

I expect drastic cuts to our bloated public sector to which Labour added an extra 800,000 people onto when they were certainly not needed, I do not expect an increase across the board or ridiculous increases in foreign aid, taxes and EU contributions. When this government leaves office it will have left us with a bigger debt than even Labour left us with.

Not to mention the fact that the Conservative Party supported Labours' spending plans right upto 2008, they're both as equally guilty for our debt.


But of course UKIP would sort everything out. :rolleyes:

- Out of the EU (£16bn saved immediately there).
- De facto out of EU regulations (£tensofbn saved there).
- An end to foreign aid (around £10bn saved there).

There's a starting point, which is more than the useless Conservative Party has done or ever will do.


On the subject of India, I do disagree with the government and we shouldn't be giving huge sums to countries more than capable of looking after themselves. Although it may be our morale obligation given our colonial roots that we do so.

If you, David Cameron or Andrew Mitchell want to give to charity, do so yourselves.


And finally on the subject of Europe, wasn't it the 80 Conservatives who ignored the whips and voted for withdrawal from the EU? Oh and was it David Cameron who vetoed a treaty which left the City of London at risk? Moreover let's not forget the very pro-Europe partners in this coalition, so even if it is in the Conservative's beliefs to leave the EU, they won't be able to do so until they win an outright election and probably gather the support from other sides of the house.

1) The Conservative Party took us into the EU in the first place.
2) The Conservative Party signed the Single European Act.
3) The Conservative Party signed the Maastricht Treaty.
4) The Conservative Party refuses to give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty or our membership itself.

..yet you expect me and millions others who no longer vote for that awful party to believe voting Conservative to 'free them' of the Liberal Democrats will result in our departure from the European Union? As for the other examples intended to please me, David Cameron did not veto anything (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/hannan-loses-it.html) and the 80 Tory MPs remain as powerless and as useless as they did before. Whats been achieved? absolutely nothing.

I and many others are making it our top priority now to destroy this useless backstabbing party which has done nothing for the people it panders to every election for votes, even if it means allowing Labour back in.

[Chippiewill]

Labour back in.
Labour was planning to spend more to prevent double dip, so maybe the inverse would have happened and the government cost would be halved.. I can always dream.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour was planning to spend more to prevent double dip

Oh just like the Tories are doing now then.

[Chippiewill]

Oh just like the Tories are doing now then.
I think that the tories were planning to use their entire term just to get to a 0% increase in spending at the end rather than from the start where as Labour didn't want to stop (EVER)

Either way it's a dumb idea and UKIP could have made a £15bn saving off the start.