HECS-HELP “Loan Forgiveness” Thoughts - Good or Bad

Curious what OzBargainers think of the various HECS-HELP loan forgiveness programs the Labor Government is buying votes with has announced over the past few months. My wife saw an article on facebook and people were pretty mad about it, but that was back when it was only a de-rating of the 7% interest down to 4% or whatever. I’m a bit mixed on it. Hard to say I have strong feelings other than annoyance at how the Aussie system is always changing rules post-hoc.

There are two major changes:
1. Changing of interest rate from CPI to the lower of WPI or CPI. This will be backdated a couple years back to when we had that 7% interest event.
2. Reducing repayment thresholds and forgiving 25% of all outstanding balances. The 25% forgiveness offsets the fact that lower repayment schedule = more interest paid over loan lifetime.

Personally I will have a small benefit from both policies, although it’s slightly annoying in that I have made voluntary repayments prior to the 7% interest slug.

IMO the 25% discount is literally just buying votes. If the repayment schedule is to be reduced to match the original intention of the scheme, then what’s wrong with the total expected interest payments that were also part of the original intention of the loan? Nothing except it’s a point of weakness before an election.

Poll Options

  • 83
    Good
  • 106
    Bad
  • 17
    Don’t really care

Comments

  • +17

    I think the ALP is just picking up American political issues of the day.
    Student debt is a massive problem over there, but not here.

    The real interest rate is zero percent. it is just indexed for inflation.

    IMO the 25% discount is literally just buying votes.

    And badly. They are just shifting many billions of dollars in debt to the general public. Including those who never had a subsidised tertiary education.
    The best part for Albanese is that it hardly affects his budgets - the load is dumped on future governments to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for it. Brilliant!

    • +1

      The real interest rate is zero percent. it is just indexed for inflation.

      That’s just semantics from big HECS-HELP. My home-loan has an interest rate of 5.5% which applies in exactly the same manner as the HECS-HELP “indexation”. The only relevant difference is the protocol for calculating the rate. Is anybody else offering “interest free” loans that have an indexation rate?

      Even neglecting “indexation”, you’re slapped with a 20% “fee” up front which isn’t nothing. If you borrow worth $45,000, get a job out of Uni for $85k and get no payrises for the ~12 years it takes to pay this off (assuming the inflation rate is 0%), then this 20% fee is equivalent to just paying an interest rate of 2.8% on a loan of $45,000 for the same 12.5 year period.

      • +6

        The only relevant difference is the protocol for calculating the rate.

        That's called compound interest, HECS-HELP loans grow linearly with CPI - It was only at 7% for like a year, its back down now under your 5.5% compounded interest rate.

        Is anybody else offering “interest free” loans that have an indexation rate?

        No - because there's no profit? not sure what your point is.

        Even neglecting “indexation”, you’re slapped with a 20% “fee” up front which isn’t nothing. If you borrow worth $45,000, get a job out of Uni for $85k and get no payrises for the ~12 years it takes to pay this off (assuming the inflation rate is 0%), then this 20% fee is equivalent to just paying an interest rate of 2.8% on a loan of $45,000 for the same 12.5 year period.

        That's not correct - because you would get pay rises close (say on average WPI). You don't get hit with a CPI increase of $45k every year for 12 years, it would be 41k +CPI second year, 36k third year, 30k fourth year etc, as you get higher pay you pay back a higher % aswell, you principle + CPI amount is smaller and smaller every year.

        • -1

          That's called compound interest, HECS-HELP loans grow linearly with CPI - It was only at 7% for like a year, its back down now under your 5.5% compounded interest rate.

          To my knowledge HECS-HELP does not “grow linearly with CPI”. The indexation is imputed on the current value of your account. For it to “grow linearly”, they’d be imputing indexation against the original borrowed value. Happy to have my mind changed on that if you can provide me a link to the ATO which backs up your claim, which seems quite bizarre to me.

          My home loan has a nominal interest rate of 5.5%. A nominal interest rate is equal to the real interest rate plus the inflation rate. If we look at the CPI for the past 12 months, we see it’s 2.8%. Taking CPI as inflation rate, we can say my home-loan has a real interest rate of only 2.7%.

          No - because there's no profit? not sure what your point is

          Actually there have been various “interest free” loans offered with product purchases. They typically offer up to 24 months interest free. None of them charged indexation in the interest free period because it’s a form of interest and the only difference is semantic.

          That's not correct - because you would get pay rises close (say on average WPI). You don't get hit with a CPI increase of $45k every year for 12 years, it would be 41k +CPI second year, 36k third year, 30k fourth year etc, as you get higher pay you pay back a higher % aswell, you principle + CPI amount is smaller and smaller every year.

          Yes, obviously, you’re welcome to run the numbers in excel as I did. The quicker you repay the loan the higher the effective “real” interest you paid on it when you consider the cost of the fees.

          • +2

            @CommuterPolluter: Once a year indexed on a single day is what I'd call linear. Say it was $45k, and you paid off the whole $45k in May right before the 1st June index date you pay $0 in interest.
            Your home loan is 5.5% p/a interest applied daily. That's what I'd treat as compounded. If you did the above you would still have interest after paying the $45k

            Actually there have been various “interest free” loans offered with product purchases. They typically offer up to 24 months interest free. None of them charged indexation in the interest free period because it’s a form of interest and the only difference is semantic

            Correct, the nominal interest rate on them would be negative whatever the inflation rate was, your money is worth less 24 months after the purchase.

            I'm basing it on the fact I had HECS-HELP which started at 30k, went up to 48k, before it started to come down but once it started to come down it came down quite quick as my income increased rapidly thanks to the fact I went to Uni.

            • +2

              @arkie0:

              @CommuterPolluter: Once a year indexed on a single day is what I'd call linear. Say it was $45k, and you paid off the whole $45k in May right before the 1st June index date you pay $0 in interest.
              Your home loan is 5.5% p/a interest applied daily. That's what I'd treat as compounded. If you did the above you would still have interest after paying the $45k

              It doesn’t matter what you treat as compounded because that isn’t what the word means.

              Compounding refers to the phenomenon by which the interest from a previous period will included in the interest calculation for a subsequent period. The indexation charged on a HECS-HELP loan absolutely will compound if you don’t pay it off.

              The specific method of applying the interest/indexation, whether it is calculated for a daily balance or once annually, is irrelevant.

              Correct, the nominal interest rate on them would be negative whatever the inflation rate was, your money is worth less 24 months after the purchase

              The real interest rate would be negative. The nominal interest rate would be zero.

              Why are you arguing about this stuff when you don’t understand what any of the basic terms, such as compounded, real, or nominal mean?

              • @CommuterPolluter:

                Why are you arguing about this stuff when you don’t understand what any of the basic terms, such as compounded, real, or nominal mean?

                haha sorry, I'll shut up now.

              • @CommuterPolluter: Indexation is an amazing loan - you can invest money simply by sitting it in a random bank account and do better than this.

                The specific method of applying the interest/indexation, whether it is calculated for a daily balance or once annually, is irrelevant.

                How is it irrelevant when it directly affects how you can pay it off and result in different dollar values?

                Your take is as terrible as your logic

    • +4

      I think the ALP is just picking up American political issues of the day.

      Labor, whom platform some form of fee-free TAFE courses at basically every freaking election?

      You never cared about the $trillion debt that the Liberals left the ALP for all the socialised losses for profitable businesses (including the Catholic church, whom declared their priests are employees and thus are entitled to JobKeeper payments - but have stated they aren't employees when it comes to Sexual Abuse cover-ups so therefore they aren't liable…. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-16/anger-over-church-vic…)

      • -2

        Oh dear, what is it with this tribal politics?
        Every time people criticise a party you identify with, you must assume they like the other one? Your team is not above criticism, whichever "team" that is.

        • +2

          "Identify with" what a brain-dead interpretation. Not shocking, mind you, with your horrible take in the original comment.

          Labor platform fee-free TAFE. My original comment stands and you are politically-illiterate.

    • +1

      The real interest rate is zero percent. it is just indexed for inflation.

      As someone with a student loan that grows every year this is rubbish, call it or "interest rate" or "indexation rate" it definitely grows and sure doesn't feel like a free loan.

      • Do you understand that 1 dollar today is not the same as 1 dollar in a years time? If it never grew it would actually be getting smaller and somebody else would be paying for it?

  • +20

    saw an article on facebook

    groan

    • -1

      It was one of those ones with a number at the front too. The commenters had very strong opinions.

  • +5

    If they do it immediately so I can benefit then GOOD, if they wait until July next year then BAD.

    Regardless, I voted bad. People need to learn to take accountability for contracts they signed.

    • +7

      People need to learn to take accountability for contracts they signed.

      100000000%

      • vote for the honesty
  • +23

    All type public sector higher education should completely be free for Australian citizens.

    • +4

      Totally agree. Need to cut back the numbers and increase the quality.

      • +1

        Except when you make it free, Uni's increase their fees and you get more junk courses

        • +4

          Except the governemnt is free to regulate that market any way they want. Funny how the Scandi countries with completely free tertiary education don't have your "what if slippery slope" issue.

          • @Charmoffensive: Yes, I agree that would be a positive reform to emulate the Nordic countries on education. I went to a public school and support public education.

            In the current environment, if you just gave out free courses without any other reform Uni's would almost certainly increase their fees.

            We need to regulate and have more government oversight on course costs, entrance requirements and enrolment numbers first. What the department of education does for public primary/high schools, just needs to be done better - and public high schools are mostly free in Australia, except most of them are crap compared to private schools. Same thing would then just happen to tertiary education, everyone gets access to Uni, the rich get access to private Uni's.

            Nordic states also have a high tax rate to fund all this, so really step 1 is really to increase taxes - about $10B a year.

    • -1

      and where do you expect the $$$ to come from ???
      Teachers don't work for free - you do know that … although many actually do 10-20 UNPAID hours each/every week … just saying !!!

      2x ppl in my family are teachers (year 11+) …
      not only do these ppl get paid for their 8-6 … they also do unpaid - EG. being available for students in lead-up to exams + marking at home … how many other professions take their work home +++ not get paid for doing it.

      • +4

        We seem to have plenty of money for nuclear submarines. Maybe we could cancel that deal and spend the money on things that are actually useful?

        • If you think nuclear submarines wouldn't be useful, are you living under a rock, or do you have a better plan?

          • +4

            @SlickMick: You really don't think there are better ways to spend $368 billion?

            Maybe go with conventional diesel submarines and cut that in half if we need a blue-water fleet

            • @Jolakot: I have no idea whether you think you know what you're talking about or not.

              I no nothing about the detail, I just figure we have a heap of coast and not much defending it, and that's going to be an issue sooner rather than later.
              I sure hope the people making the decisions don't try to skimp on our defence.

              • +4

                @SlickMick: It's like a new parent buying a $6000 pram, and then complaining that they can't afford rent. When asked why they spent so much on a pram, their only response is that the baby needs a pram, do you want the baby to not have a pram?

                For reference, we paid $5.1 billion in 1999 for our current fleet of 6 collins-class diesel submarines, adjusted for inflation that's about $10 billion today. For $368 billion, we are getting 8 nuclear submarines, the only real advantage is that they can be easily deployed beyond our waters. That's not entirely a fair comparison for a number of reasons, but it doesn't have to be with the gigantic difference in cost.

                For that same amount of money, we could build 100 new diesel submarines (expecting a catastrophic cost blow-out to $2 billion each), forgive the $80 billion in HECs debt, and still have enough money left over to hand every Australian a cheque for $3000.

                In what backwards-ass world does that make sense, if the purpose is to protect our borders?

                • -2

                  @Jolakot: You could also argue that it's like a new student buying a 100k course, then complaining then can't afford to repay it. When asked why they spent so much on a course (instead of working right away), their only response is that they need the 100k course, do you not want them to be on an above average income?

                  But not saying that nuclear subs spending could have been better spent

                  • +2

                    @arkie0: My gripe with HECs is that my parents didn't have to pay for their university education, but I did.

                    If the government tracked down everyone who got a free education and retroactively tacked on HECs based on the current cost of their degree, I would think the current system is more than fair.

                    Otherwise, I think it's cowardly to complain about having to pay for other people's education, when you had other people pay for yours. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

                    • -1

                      @Jolakot: So here's my gripe, my parents immigrated here - so they and I have never known free university. I finished a double degree costing about 35k (60-65k today accounting for inflation), it ballooned up to 48k over 5 years (75-80k inflation adjusted) before my income was high enough to start bringing it down. Took me about 10 years to pay it off from there, so 15 years all together.

                      I'm happy to subsidise Uni students to get the same advantage I got but then to say I now have to pay more tax so that they get free education is unfair in that I never got free handout for my education, but I now have to pay for yours?

                      In saying that, I would still support increased taxes for free university for future students - I just wouldn't support abolishing current HELP loans.

                      • +1

                        @arkie0: That sounds like a personal failing, why weren't you born here in the 60s so that you could have received free education then? Same with buying a house, should have been out there hustling instead of in preschool. You snooze you lose.

                        In all seriousness, I'm right there with you, I've paid mine off completely and would be frustrated too. But as they say; the best time to make something right was yesterday, the second best time is today.

                        It makes no sense to saddle young people with debt and give old people tax benefits. You need that money and borrowing capacity most when you're young with an endless list of expenses (especially young families) and minimal asset, and need it least when you're old and have a lifetime of assets.

                • -2

                  @Jolakot: I have no idea whether your pram/ submarine analogy is comparative.

                  I suspect that if you were in charge we'd be spending our $3000 on learning the language of our new overlords.

                  • +1

                    @SlickMick: We need submarines and a strong navy to protect Australia, but nuclear submarines are a terrible investment.

                    If I was in charge I would build 10 diesel submarines for $20 billion, and refund $12600 to every Australian over that time period.

                • @Jolakot: Can’t put a price on fighting climate change mate. Diesel has got to go.

                  • +1

                    @CommuterPolluter: Diesel is a misnomer, they're actually electric submarines with a diesel generator that charges the batteries when out at sea, like a hybrid car.

                    How about we allocate another $20 billion and buy some extension cables, so we can plug the submarines in to the local wind farm while they're out at sea?

      • +4

        Dude almost everyone who is a professional takes work home. At home, I think about issues and chat with partner about work for the additional perspective on more complex issues.

        Much to my dismay I also sometimes get the work laptop out to check if things I've been waiting on have a higher level of urgency.

        I also take calls pretty much around the clock from juniors (provided it's for a good reason) because we work in a very high pressure field and I don't want anyone to waste energy on anxiety created by me being less approachable, or having my team members dwell on things alone.

        Sadly, for my sins, I do not get 3 months off a year, and still long to burn out and become a year 12 history teacher. I'm always looking at how low those master of education fees are but.. our 30s are for burning ourselves into the ground, right?

    • No, just the qualifications Australian needs over the next x years. If you want to study whatever you want, you pay for it yourself. I've you're willing to fill a gap where you're needed, we'll fund you to get there.

    • That ship has sailed and is never returning no matter what occurred in the past.

  • +10
    1. Changing of interest rate from CPI to the lower of WPI or CPI. This will be backdated a couple years back to when we had that 7% interest event.

    Good. Government debt should not have been at a rate higher than a personal loan. A fair fix to this weird economic outlier that had WPI and CPI so disconnected.

    1. Reducing repayment thresholds and forgiving 25% of all outstanding balances. The 25% forgiveness offsets the fact that lower repayment schedule = more interest paid over loan lifetime.

    Bad. Money better spent elsewhere.

    I did once see Mike Rowe (from Dirty Jobs) talking about student debt forgiveness and how many blue collar workers take out take out car, truck and tool loans for their employment or to start businesses. They will earn less on average but no one will think twice about forgiving the loans they take out. Made me think.

    Basically, we have a great system in HECs. But America has a shithouse system and we seem to be importing America's 'debt forgiveness' solution without actually having America's education financing the problem.

    • Good. Government debt should not have been at a rate higher than a personal loan. A fair fix to this weird economic outlier that had WPI and CPI so disconnected.

      I agree with the change backdating it is the only objectionable element. They had plenty of time to pass legislation before the indexation was applied but they didn’t. Now it’s conveniently gonna happen right before an election.

    • -2

      There's no money to be spent.

      This is the problem with the language. They call it a loan, but it's not. Its a tax debt that sits against your ATO account in a special pocket and attracts the indexation etc.

      There's no loan. The govt doesn't give people money and they dont require it back to function. They arent a bank.

      Its a policy decision to tell tax payers 'see, its not free'. Problem is, the administration of it and the money it sucks out of the economy - is it working as intended?

      • +3

        The money is paid to the university on behalf of the student.

        It's a loan. It's is the title - Higher Education Loan Program (HELP).

  • +9

    "buying votes" so just democracy?

    • +3

      "Buying votes" is a bad thing, unless they're cosying up to big businesses or mining companies, then it's a good thing.

    • +4

      money for other people = “buying votes”
      money for me = “sensible policy”

  • +4

    infinite money glitch. we can all work at uni

    • +3

      100% of the population can have PhD's now too

      • +1

        Super smart society, winners all around

        • Finally, we can all get free access to EDU stores. Will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars each year but who cares when we can save personally $100 ;)

  • +10

    Bad for people like me who used their savings to pay off their student loans when the rate was 7%, now can't take advantage of the 25% discount. I agree with changing the interest rate to lower of WPI or CPI, and with the reduction of repayment thresholds, but I don't agree with the 25% forgiveness.

    • +1

      But why would you cash out savings to pay off a loan that in real terms doesn’t ever increase, seems like not the best financial decision.

      • Because if you paid it off by 1 june 2023, you got an instant, 7% return on your savings, higher than any savings account was offering. Now, people who made a sensible financial decision at the time (to pay off their hecs being indexed at 7%+) based on all available information, are now worse off. I cant get my savings back and retroactively apply a 5.5% pa interest rate.

  • +7

    What about those of us who paid our fees upfront or have already paid off the loans?

    • +1

      At lower indexation or in periods of 10-20% upfront discounts?

      Or when a basic degree was $5-10k?

      • +2

        The upfront discount was finished by the time I started. Mine is going to end up costing close to $40k, maybe I should let it go to the HELP loan in case they decide to forgive it. I don't want to be missing out.

        • Its a fair question. As soon as the discounts stopped for bulk repayments, I stopped paying.

          Its a tax debt. If they arent going to incentivise me, then they can come after me when Im dead…

          Oh wait…🤦‍♀️

      • ooh - we aren't living in 1996 anymore - or even close to that.

        back then it was roughly … $1,500 - $2000 "per semester"

  • -2

    Good and doesnt go far enough. Without going into it:

    • HECS debt shouldn't exist. If any debt must exist it should be the subsidised course + a reasonable admin fee
    • all indexation should be forgiven
    • the loophole around banks factoring it mortgage calculations needs to be removed
    • everyone should get 96 credits (one UG course) free, HECS should apply after that
    • as a counter, HECS should be recovered from estates
    • +2

      It's not a loophole as such - anything that reduces your disposable income also reduces your borrowing power. This is part of the banks' responsible lending provisions. Remove that from your servicing calc, and next thing you know some graduate with a $60k debt will be on ACA crying about their mortgage repayments being too hard to handle and accusing the mean old bank of lending them more than they could afford.
      And APRA has instructed FIs to include HECS balances in calculations of debt-to-income ratios as well. See Prudential Regulation 220 for that little gem.

      • +2

        No, I agree - banks are doing their job, rightly so.

        However, speak to a pollie and theyll bleat on about how it's not allowed to be a factor.

        Well, it obviously is, for thousands of people. And Canberra needs to be honest about the actual impacts of their teriary policies, none of which the University Accords fixed

      • Forgiveness is free if it's created and neverhas a possibility of recovery.

        How much is repaid annually? And by what tax bracket? Im interested to know.

        Would also like to know current expenditure on universities, tafe, free tafe, all CSP, all government scholarships for part or full tuition for both domestic and international students.

        See, tertiary is messy. And that doesnt even touch grants, research etc (also huge swathes government funded)

        But I guarantee you that HECS will be added to the death tax list proposal within 18 months

        • Forgiveness is still lost income the government was expecting to get

          I feel like chatgpt didn't estimate correctly because it only counts the cost the government subsidies too, not the full cost of the course - like 100k for the cost of the course for a full fee place.

          Government currently spends 48B a year (23-2024) on education - though that's primary + secondary + tertiary

  • +4

    I read an economist's opinion piece in the Fairfax media suggesting people who went to uni have a lifetime income a third higher than those who didn't. Forgiving the debts of higher-income earners doesn’t make our nation fairer or more prosperous because whom do you think will end up making up the shortfall?

  • +1

    Ms Broome said higher income earners had thousands of dollars held by the ATO each year, but it was not paid directly off their student loan.

    "If you are having money taken out every fortnight depending on how you are paid and it is not actually reducing the debt, then that does seem to be unfair."

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-03/student-debt-rising-h…

    Imagine taking out a loan only to find your compulsory weekly/fortnightly repayments go……somewhere…..for the whole remainder of the working year. You might expect each payment should reduce the principal but no. Instead, at the end of financial year you watch with disappointment as your loan amount increases to indexation and then FINALLY your repayments (that have gone AWOL for up to a year) are used to reduce the new (higher) $ value of the loan. No opportunity to reduce the loan and indexation burden through frequent repayments.

    That's the current situation for those with HELP loans. No idea what happens with the money held in trust by the ATO(?) for the financial year. Is it earning interest? If yes, who gets the interest?

    Now of course there's another side to this. What if you're a student and you don't work or lose your job for part of the year. Those repayments when you were earning money were taken on the assumption you'd earn a certain amount (above the threshold) for the whole year. If at tax time you wind up below the threshold, you basically get money back that should have gone to repaying your loan. Is that a good or bad thing? You can look forward to that jetski come tax time! Joke obviously but it's a bit perverse….

    So it's very possible you could carry on for a long time if you don't have success with employment, have medical situation or become a mother (see article) etc. etc. The loan may not meaningfully go down for many years.

    edit: I don't know how to block quote

    • Imagine taking out a loan only to find your compulsory weekly/fortnightly repayments go……somewhere…

      As you alluded to, they’re held in trust in case you don’t actually incur that liability, in which case the money is refunded to you. It’s more a problem with PAYG than with HECS-HELP.

      As for HECS-HELP not crediting you those repayments prior to calculating interest, it’s unfortunate but honestly it’s a small fraction of the overall indexation/interest value. We are talking about maybe 10% of your total interesr but most likely less esp. for lower earners (consider say a $4,500 mandatory repayment (average out to only $2,250 across the year) against a $27,000 loan). Much bigger issues are the exorbitant upfront fee, not capping indexation to WPI (yet), and lack of incentives for early repayment. The current system does have one incentive for early repayment which is you get the whole year credited, which is nice.

  • +1

    They should just raise the repayment income thresholds to > $500,000 per year.

  • -1

    It's good. We've had free education before and I suspect that in the next few decades education will be free again because AI will probably able to deliver most course material for many degrees virtually for free. Some degrees will always be expensive, but they will be a bit cheaper too in the future. So why not forgive the debt.

    • -1

      No one will need degrees because of AI.

  • +9

    The outrage against it is mostly from boomers. A generation that had free university education.

    I would rather see HECS debt paid off in small portions, free for each year you work in Australia, rather than getting an education here and taking your talent overseas

  • +1

    How much do university degrees cost nowadays? I paid about $25k for a 4-year degree. Back in my parents' day, university degrees were free. Now Australian universities seem to be diploma mills/profit machines. The university schools pass as much of the teaching as possible onto postgrad students and part-timers so that they don't have to employ many full-time staff with full salaries. On top of that, very few of the lecturers at Australian universities are trained teachers who actually know how to teach. If I was an 18-year-old nowadays, I'd honestly consider doing an online degree via Coursera or something.

  • personally think we need to go the other way - the threshold should be 'lowered' and the payments should higher but thats just me

    it shouldn't be up to taxpayers to pay for individual decision - esp considering how many people just leave and never pay the money back seems like a poor policy from a government desperate to stay in power after a disaster of a term

    the arguement 'uni was free' - is pretty stupid as less then 10 percent of the population went to uni back in the 50s now we have around half the domestic population taking on study post high school - times need to change to keep things sustainable the only exception would be degrees that lead to jobs we have shortages off or dire need - ie nurses teachers etc

    i would perhaps have some kind of 'uni is free' program for students study skills shortage degrees and work in 'regional' or area of need for xx amount of years but otherwise the HECS system is a good system unlike the US student loans system and the government is just wasting more taxpayer money for people who ultimately should end up higher income earners

    • +4

      the arguement 'uni was free' - is pretty stupid as less then 10 percent of the population went to uni back in the 50s now we have around half the domestic population taking on study post high school - times need to change to keep things sustainable the only exception would be degrees that lead to jobs we have shortages off or dire need - ie nurses teachers etc

      We should go even further than this and charge everyone who got a degree for free back then the full cost of the degree today.

      Why are you talking about the 50s, university was free until 1989?

    • +1

      it shouldn't be up to taxpayers to pay for individual decision

      Whilst we're add it, maybe we can stop giving taxpayer funds to private schools.

  • +4

    Uni is already subsidised by the government, and it's a good investment from a financial point of view - on average, anyway. Uni grads make a lot more than non-uni grads. Also, uni fees in Australia are very reasonable. So the government is just further subsidising a group of students who are, on average, privileged to begin with - and who were already subsidised to begin with.

    If the government tied the fee relief to certain conditions (i.e. limited to those from the lowest-income families, or with the highest uni marks) I'd be a lot more supportive of it.

    • +1

      The amount the government subsidises is dependant on the course type (funding cluster). Not all students get the same subsidy from the government.

      E.g.
      Law and Accounting students pay $17k (HECS amount), and the government subsidises $1.3k per year
      Teacher students pay $4.6k (HECS amount), government subsidises $15.5k

      The HECS for law and accounting students are so high now, its going to hurt those studying it for a while.

      Link

  • +9

    Man, this is problem with Australian society. Most Australians just look at issue from the lens of do they benefit?

    I am not benefiting from this HECS forgiveness scheme but I am supporting it because frankly we need more people to be able to read longer posts on ozbargain and provide feedback on key social and political issues. You are not going to be able to have a good discussion if people cannot read more than a few lines of text.

    It is the same as people that doubt the efficacy of a good higher education. I keep seeing people write TLDR which means "too long didn't read" and it is like you have stepped into a different world because you have people that went to university who can read it, whilst you have another portion of society that are heavily dependent on finding bargains which cannot. I do sometimes wonder if we put those people with a free higher education would they still need to be looking hardcore for these bargains on everyday essentials.

    For example I can tell you it is very common for me to be reading multiple 50-100 page judgments daily… Then I come here and I am flabbergasted at how different the average part of our society is. Frankly, most people do have the attention span of a goldfish…

    We need to change that by having good policies that promote education. If we made higher education free starting from tomorrow, under the thought process of the OP, it would seem they would be against it because they had to pay for it. That's a very odd way of looking at things.

    • We need to change that by having good policies that promote education. If we made higher education free starting from tomorrow, under the thought process of the OP, it would seem they would be against it because they had to pay for it. That's a very odd way of looking at things

      I find it bizarre that you can read a 50 page judgement but are apparently unable to muster up the effort to read my short little OP. The word drongo comes to mind. The only aspects which I specifically objected to were that the indexation change will be backdated, and the 25% discount on all outstanding debts. Neither of the policies have any specific effect of “[promoting] education” because no current or prospective student will benefit from them. They are obvious ploys to buy votes, and the only thing they are intended to “promote” is a feeling of gratitude towards the Albanese Government.

  • +4

    I love the logic of "it doesn't help me so I don't like it".
    In the same vein if you already own a home I assume you're opposed to increasing the First Home Buyers Grant (or similar policies) because you don't directly benefit ?

    • That's not the same vein, FHBG is driving up the value of my property.

      I wouldn't pay myself for the quality of education I've observed, and don't want my tax money paying for it either.
      The cost has gone up heaps, but the quality seems to be moving in a different direction. I wouldn't pay more than nothing.

      I got a diploma back in the day when the gov paid me to do it (fed me, accommodated me, and gave be an allowance), a degree when an employer paid for it, a grad certificate when I got a sponsorship, and I'm thinking of doing a a free tafe certificate next year.

      • You understand that the free tafe course is paid for by tax money ?
        Also all your other studies were as well. HECS doesn't cover 100% of the cost of these courses, universities get a ton of money from the goverment and heavily subsidise their courses.

    • +1

      Actually did you know if you pay for home insurance you're paying for a fire services levy etc?

      If you don't then not only do you get free emergency services you get a go fund me because you're not insured

      It's the age of no consequences and no responsibility

    • I think it’s reasonable logic when the policy in question is essentially a wealth transfer to an arbitrary section of the population.

      Bracket creep has moved debtors onto a more onerous repayment schedule compared to the original intention of the scheme. However, while this imposes a hardship on debtors it also benefits them by forcing them to pay off their debt quicker reducing their total interest costs. The Labor Government is proposing to fix the onerous repayment schedule without taking away the associated benefit of a quicker debt repayment timeline (by means of a 25% debt forgiveness). It’s essentially saying “here’s your cake and you can eat it too”.

      You could graduate tomorrow, have never been charged a dollar in indexation fees, and get a nice 25% discount on your HECS-HELP debt. It’s unjust.

  • +3

    There absolutely needs to be forgiveness for the last 10 years of interest. People who oppose this have zero clue what is going on.

    The immediate issue is the immense inflation of indexation that occured in the last 3 years that went out of control. On top of this everyones salary inflated well past repayment thresholds. But neither wage growth nor tax brackets were scaled to debt increases. This was a stealth tax increase on the youngest and most cash poor of the population.

    Secondly HECS was originally on CPI increase but unjustly switched over to Indexation by the Coalition. And of course it was the Coalition that induced inflation via delayed vaccines effects on the economy, immense weapons acquisition and poor management of foreign trade.

    Thirdly HECS isn't a bond tied to the Reserve. It's an investment that has low expectation of repayment. Wiping it out has next zero effect on the budget.

    The debt increases were basically a wealth transfer from HECS holders to the Government for their reckless spending.

    • +1

      Wait until you get a home loan if you're struggling with HECS.

      • +4

        The young won't even get a home loan at this rate. Especially since the inflation induced ballooning HECS debt counts towards the application.

        People who oppose this are voting to create a lost generation.

        I have no debt and won't benefit but even I see the train wreck comming.

        • So what is so special about this round of inflation ballooning HECS debt that is so different to what many of us dealt with during our HECS debt in the early 90's. hell my first 2 years were at 8% and 6.4%. I don't recall anyone calling us a lost generation in the 90's.

  • -1

    If people vote for this then they really got rocks in their heads.

    People with debts get a discount. But what about their kids. Lets live in hope they get a lucky cut too?

    I found out the other day Open University is charging the same as top tier universities (Melbourne / UNSW) and it is online only. Why are they charging the same $16k when there is no campus etc. Should be less than $10k.

    The whole university charging scheme here is a rort.

    There used to be a discount for paying up front and discount for voluntary repayments. It is a common thing in the private sector to motivate people to pay on time. But you know the government don't motivate they just punish you with more fees / penalty interest.

  • -3

    Let's continue to reward the baristas with bachelors degrees. Good job government.

  • Could have at least reduced HECS debts on critical roles (i.e., nurses, paramedics, STEM, etc)

  • Higher education must be free for citizens imho. We are paying life long taxes on earnings anyway!

  • +1

    Looking over finance videos on Youtube, it seems like many young and middle aged Americans are banking on large debt forgiveness over there as a bailout, and it seems like we're developing that trend here too.

    Why work to pay off the debt you voluntarily took on when someone in the future will just wipe it out? The people who paid off their HECS debt must feel like suckers.

    • It gets taken out of your pay automatically. This was how I paid off mine. If I hadn't worked and paid it off, the debt would now be twice or three times as big.

  • It's really bad for people who just paid off their loans before whatever cutoff date they decide.

    And it also teaches you not to pay off your debts - you get punished for saving and paying off your loans, you get rewarded for delaying as much as possible.

    Instead they could just make it cheap to begin with and it would encourage more people to take up education

  • +1

    I support loan reductions, however, they must be accompanied by some market rationalization. Just because the bills change hands from students, to the government, doesn't mean there shouldn't be strong downward pressure on the tuition. Similarly, we don't want to see this lead to large scale enrolments "because it's free." Students should face a significant and non-trivial barrier to entry to prevent frivolous enrollment. These barriers should strongly favor degrees with stronger market demand. I don't know what the right balance is. But simply passing the debt from student to government doesn't address the root cause.

    The qualification bar is in such a weird place nowadays, and the pay for skilled persons has simply been eroded. We have a combination of intermediate degrees (Cert 1-4) disappearing (as a result of TAFE being gutted), businesses hiring "degree only" where it isn't required, and those degrees, attracting minimum wage. We need to make that stop.

    • Similarly, we don't want to see this lead to large scale enrolments "because it's free." Students should face a significant and non-trivial barrier to entry to prevent frivolous enrollment. These barriers should strongly favor degrees with stronger market demand.

      I agree. I think Rudd specifically deserves a lot of blame for this, his ego has put us in a bad position.

  • its mixed. I support change to the way it is indexed and threseholds, but not the loan forgiveness, it is completely unnecessary government pork barreling.

  • Bad. Very bad.

    These people wanted the degree and were happy to let others front the money.

    And now repaying it is a problem?

    Everyone knows what interest vs indexing is. Again they happily took the deal, for decades never complained about sub 3% indexing. Now that it doesn't go their way they bitch.

    Shameful.

Login or Join to leave a comment