The Dim-Post

March 13, 2012

Candid Key

Filed under: economics,education — danylmc @ 3:40 pm

The Prime Minister on student loans:

Charging interest would bring in considerable extra revenue for the Government, but Key said he would be voted out if National did so.

“Bluntly, if you want me to be really crude about it there are 565,000 student loans out there. If we add interest back on the student loans, it doubles repayment time of the loan.

“If your loan is $50,000, and it’s estimated it will take you eight years to pay it off, we effectively turn it into a loan that is about $90,000 with interest that takes you about 15 years to repay,” Key said.

“That is about the only thing that will get [young people] out of bed before 7 o’clock at night to vote, but it’s not politically sustainable to put interest back on student loans. It may not be great economics, but it’s great politics. It is a bit of a tragedy because it sends the wrong message to young people, it tells them to go out and borrow debt.”

I’m surprised they don’t make the argument for interest rates at the rate of inflation. As it is, the value of the loan actually decreases each year. I’m also surprised Key hasn’t securitised the $12 billion dollar loan portfolio, packaged it into opaque financial products that inflated its value a thousand fold, borrowed a trillion dollars from China so the government could buy the loans off itself and paid off the deficit that way.

Maybe next term.

About these ads

65 Comments »

  1. Interest-free loans is probably the only thing keeping young graduates from leaving NZ immediately.

    Comment by marsoe — March 13, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

  2. I wonder if that flippant remark about students will encourage them to get out in time to vote against Key next election?

    Comment by Aj — March 13, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

  3. 68% of Stuff voters agree with him.

    That’s the election sewn up then.

    Comment by MeToo — March 13, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

  4. “68% of Stuff voters agree with him.”

    but do they really? – the question is “should student loans remain interest free?” – not “do you agree with what the PM says?”

    sure – the question may not really matter and people do support this – but theres no way to tell either way

    Comment by framu — March 13, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

  5. “That is about the only thing that will get [young people] out of bed before 7 o’clock at night to vote, but it’s not politically sustainable to put interest back on student loans. It may not be great economics, but it’s great politics. It is a bit of a tragedy because it sends the wrong message to young people, it tells them to go out and borrow debt.”

    Have I misunderstood, or is he essentially stating clearly on the record that he’d rather send what he believes is the wrong message to young people and have them stay at home on election day than risk being voted out of office by a democratic majority?

    You’d think a competent opposition would have a field day over this.

    Comment by MikeM — March 13, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

  6. Hopefully this is the start of the bidding war.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — March 13, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

  7. If you want politicians to be realistic and pragmatic you don’t get to bitch when they justify their policy decisions in a pragmatic, realist way.

    Comment by Hugh — March 13, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

  8. It has now been announced there will be no changes to the scheme at all, despite Key saying the government was going to rein in student loans “in a big way”.
    See http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8434259/student-loans-safe-keys-office-says

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — March 13, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

  9. Yeah, Key is arrogant. What a low view he has of students, even though he was once one himself.
    Oh, but that’s right, not many students become self made millionaires. The guy indeed has an inflated, overt ego!
    This student won’t be voting for Key now or ever.

    Comment by Tanz — March 13, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

  10. Yet another example of why socialism is unsustainable. These fuckwit socialist bred “students” think that all they have to do to get “free” money is to vote for it.

    Even worse, socialist politicians agree with that imbecilic belief, and will promise them “free” money for their vote.

    It’s too late for Key to be whining now. The stable door is wide open and the horse has long since bolted.

    Drenched in the stupidity of socialism, this country is fucked and there is nothing in its short term future but ruin.

    As Maggie said, “the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money”, and its that very thing that is happening in socialist countries all over the globe.

    Pity.

    If the kids were being educated rather than indoctrinated, (as has happened to most of the commenters on this blog) they would be able to realise their folly.

    No such luck.

    Comment by Redbaiter — March 13, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

  11. why don’t you get out then redbaiter

    cast off your socialist clothing and socialist language and socialist grooming and run naked through the woods like the repulsive beast you are

    Comment by Trouble Man — March 13, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

  12. [young people] =

    kids?

    fuckwit socialist bred “students”?

    young punks?

    wasting slackers?

    juvenile parasites?

    Comment by Aztec — March 13, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

  13. Kids- naive young adults, denied a real education, force fed the brain destroying tenets of collectivism, callously exploited by the power seeking left, and whose freedom and future have both been sacrificed to the destructive charade of socialism.

    Its the only way socialism can work- brainwashing impressionable and inexperienced children. Getting that wedge implanted there so that it is almost impossible to remove.

    There is probably not a commenter on this blog who did not come about his belief in socialism by this manner.

    Education has been perverted into a recruitment process for socialists.

    Selling socialism to rational and life experienced adults is a dead end. You know this well.

    Comment by Redbaiter — March 13, 2012 @ 5:49 pm

  14. If you want politicians to be realistic and pragmatic you don’t get to bitch when they justify their policy decisions in a pragmatic, realist way.

    If it was about negotiating with coalition partners or other elected parties to get in more of National’s favoured policy, then fine, but it isn’t really. National and coalition partners have a both a mandate and a responsibility from the election to implement what they think is good policy, or at least do things that they believe will increase votes in future, but.instead he’s come out and stated that it’s better to foster low voter turnout rather than convince people that National’s policy is a good idea.

    Voter turnout for getting the populace’s opinions at elections is a potentially serious issue for the future of representative governments (being considered right now), but it’s hard to see how it’ll be treated seriously by a JK-led government if he’s so concerned with certain groups of people continuing to not vote.

    Comment by MikeM — March 13, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

  15. Oh Redbaiter, you tease. Here I was silently cursing you in the “Back to Basics” thread because you left me one word short in my game of Rabid Right-Wing Fucktard Bingo. Yet here you’re basically punctuating your sentences with “socialist”.

    *sigh*

    Comment by The Green Blazer — March 13, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

  16. “Even worse, socialist politicians agree with that imbecilic belief,”

    You mean socialist politicians like the National Party?

    Don’t worry Breadtaster, one day the erudicatory power of your blog comments will kick in and the world will change to be exactly as you wish it to be. Just keep those comments coming because they really really do make a difference.

    Comment by nommopilot — March 13, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

  17. “You mean socialist politicians like the National Party?”

    Really, that is insane.

    What kind of blind deranged fuckwit would imagine the National Party was not Socialist?????

    Comment by Redbaiter — March 13, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

  18. I’m going to curl up in my socialist bed now to cry socialist tears because you were mean to me. please go away back to your troll hole because you’re way too tough and wise for this blog.

    it must be hell living in a world where you are afraid of socialists and everybody you see you classify as a socialist. must be hard to stay sane and rational, hey?

    Comment by nommopilot — March 13, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

  19. Redbaiter meet Sanctuary

    Comment by Tinakori — March 13, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

  20. children become socialist because of education

    this is called empathy

    it is a socialist superpower

    Comment by Trouble Man — March 13, 2012 @ 6:20 pm

  21. Redbaiter, have you written the definitive ‘proper conservatism explained for socialist fuckwits, aka educated people’ post that you promised us? I was looking forward to it.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — March 13, 2012 @ 6:48 pm

  22. “National and coalition partners have a both a mandate and a responsibility from the election to implement what they think is good policy”

    Seems like you’re putting them in a catch 22. If they go for a Douglasite, neo libertarian-conservative “crash through” approach, then they’ll get criticised for doing horrible things. If they don’t do this, they are violating this responsibility and will get criticised for that.

    Even if they do have this obligation, and I’m dubious, I think it’s best if they’re held to it by the people they owe it to – e.g. National voters – not the people on this blog, who are collectively about as likely to vote National as they are to open a vein (Danyl is an honourable exception). Anything else is concern trolling.

    Comment by Hugh — March 13, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

  23. Seems like you’re putting them in a catch 22. If they go for a Douglasite, neo libertarian-conservative “crash through” approach, then they’ll get criticised for doing horrible things.

    Hi @Hugh. I don’t think so. I think it’d be perfectly reasonable to argue something like “we’d like to do this but most people don’t want it or our coalition partners who also received support won’t let us, so we won’t”. The way I read Key’s comments, though, he was specifically saying “we’d like to do this but we only have a majority because so many people didn’t vote, and we’d rather continue to foster a low voter turnout where people are discouraged from expressing their opinion than risk losing with a high turnout that represents a more complete democracy”.

    Even if they do have this obligation, and I’m dubious, I think it’s best if they’re held to it by the people they owe it to – e.g. National voters

    I think the government has an obligation to govern as well as it can for the entire population, irrespective of whether those people voted for it. Children don’t vote, but that doesn’t mean they should be ignored, and neither should people who preferred parties in opposition. I don’t expect the government to do everything I think is right, but I do expect it to make decisions based on what it thinks is best for everyone rather than just a subset of people who vote for it.

    Comment by MikeM — March 13, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

  24. @Mike: I agree it’s unfortunate that he expressed it as “We’re not pursuing this policy because it would make nonvoters vote for our opponents”, but when you talk about his obligation to do what he believes in his heart of hearts is best regardless of what anybody except potential coalition partners think, it sounds like you think that he would have been just as wrong had he instead said “We’re not pursuing this policy because it would make our voters vote for our opponents”.

    I think the government has an obligation to govern as well as it can for the entire population, irrespective of whether those people voted for it.

    Fair enough. Speaking as part of this entire population I am intensely happy that Key is not pursuing his heartfelt political interests on this issue, and probably on many others too. My desire to not get gouged on my student loan overrides my desire for intense applied political earnestness.

    Comment by Hugh — March 13, 2012 @ 7:51 pm

  25. “Seems like you’re putting them in a catch 22. If they go for a Douglasite, neo libertarian-conservative “crash through” approach, then they’ll get criticised for doing horrible things. If they don’t do this, they are violating this responsibility and will get criticised for that.”

    I don’t think those are the only options. How about a moderate, middle-of-the-road, fiscally responsible policy – like inflation adjusting student loans. After all, even Michael Cullen had a fit and a two-week sulk with Helen Clark/Heather Simpson/Grant Robertson developed and announced this particular election bribe.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — March 13, 2012 @ 7:53 pm

  26. Student loans wouldn’t be an issue if there were actual jobs in NZ for grads, as well as everybody else who wants one. We’re loading down generations with debt – the same generations we expect to fund superannuation. The same generations who’d like to have a decent standard of living for themselves. Overseas job experience is all good in theory – if you ignore the atomisation of families and support networks. Humans thrive in strong, healthy families and communities and respond much better to positive incentives and useful alternatives. If we have decent, people-centred, shared values modelled by the top tier of society, those will indeed trickle down.
    On a related note, less than half of all new secondary teacher grads are finding jobs, they simply are not there. All good for a government wanting to privatise and casualise education. Same theory – create a surplus of employees wanting work, then privatise schools so the fresh employers hire new, young teachers, pay them less, and burn them out fast. Repeat.

    Comment by Kerry — March 13, 2012 @ 9:03 pm

  27. “I don’t think those are the only options. How about a moderate, middle-of-the-road, fiscally responsible policy – like inflation adjusting student loans. After all, even Michael Cullen had a fit and a two-week sulk with Helen Clark/Heather Simpson/Grant Robertson developed and announced this particular election bribe.”

    Or how about abandoning student loans as the stupid idea it always has been?

    Comment by Andrew R — March 13, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

  28. I am always torn about student loans and interest. On the one hand, I don’t think putting interest on is the answer. but, on the other hand, I know a lot of people who have the money to pay off their loans but don’t bother because why would they? Better to leave the money in the bank to earn interest/put it into a house/spend it on travelling around the world etc. Perhaps the answer is to either a) accept that they’re a stupid idea and just get rid of them or b) keep the interest free loans but make the repayment rate higher for singletons in employment. Even when I was earning more than enough to live off comfortably (in a flat, with modest lifestyle) I was only being asked ot pay back a few thousand on my loan per year. I could easily have paid more. Obviously it is very different for those with children however… which could get difficult for IRD to calculate. Hmmmm, perhaps I am no better than John Key, and can’t see a solution either.

    Comment by Amy — March 13, 2012 @ 9:26 pm

  29. Finally – looks like Key’s basically gone “ah fuck it, I’m not going to keep a one seat majority through to the 2014 elections so fuck all this pretence and bullshit”. I look forward to the next questions put to him on asset sales, top-rate tax cuts and superannuation cause I’m over it too…

    Comment by garethw — March 13, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

  30. “Or how about abandoning student loans as the stupid idea it always has been?”

    Exactly.

    However that would take courage, initiative, passion, articulate argument, and of course, an ideological base.

    Ever seen any sign of such things in Key’s lame arsed National government?

    Compromise and giving ground is always the very first thing they (and “advisors” like Hooton) think of.

    Comment by Redbaiter — March 13, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

  31. “How about a moderate, middle-of-the-road, fiscally responsible policy – like inflation adjusting student loans.”

    My point was that this doesn’t represent Key’s genuine personal preference, and would thus violate the “mandate and a responsibility from the election to implement what they think is good policy”.

    But hey, well done for hitting your buzzword total before the week’s even half over. Do you and Pete George keep score?

    Comment by Hugh — March 14, 2012 @ 12:29 am

  32. Who let RedBaiter out of his cage, he is to be commended. I missed his rants. I dedicated my vote for Greens to him even last election.

    Comment by Jeff R — March 14, 2012 @ 4:38 am

  33. I thought Danyl was good at Satire, but Redbaiter is frigging awesome…

    Comment by Ben — March 14, 2012 @ 7:05 am

  34. Compromise and giving ground is always the very first thing they (and “advisors” like Hooton) think of.

    I’m pretty sure Hooton would disagree with this policy and advise Key to ‘be bold’, scrap the loans and ‘move the country to the right’.

    Comment by danylmc — March 14, 2012 @ 7:09 am

  35. @ danyl: “I’m pretty sure Hooton would disagree with this policy and advise Key to ‘be bold’, scrap the loans and ‘move the country to the right’.”

    That’s not what he suggests @ 25 above: “I don’t think those are the only options. How about a moderate, middle-of-the-road, fiscally responsible policy – like inflation adjusting student loans.”

    But, then again, he is socialist. Apparently.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 14, 2012 @ 8:21 am

  36. Scrap student loans? That’s an Alliance policy.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — March 14, 2012 @ 9:06 am

  37. That’s not what he suggests @ 25 above

    Oh, I didn’t see him tucked away up there, all shy and coy.

    Comment by danylmc — March 14, 2012 @ 9:14 am

  38. To my mind, comments about changes to student loans have to be interpreted in the context of Steven Joyce being the minister of tertiary education. Joyce is a your classic business sector philistine. To him, education is primarily a vocational commodity that is purchased with the sole aim of securing employment. the idea of education and higher learning might exist to serve some higher cultural, scientific or human values is incomprehensible concept to the likes of Joyce. Student loans may be safe for all the “practical” business, accounting and science degrees; But I would make a shrewd guess and suggest that the right to a loan to study, say, Russian language to post graduate level could be under threat. Attacking as elitist parasites the inhabitants of the various Humanities departments making a career out of studying the liberal arts is exactly the sort of focus group driven realpolitik that would have the John Armstrongs of this world purring in agreement.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 14, 2012 @ 9:36 am

  39. Even when I was earning more than enough to live off comfortably (in a flat, with modest lifestyle) I was only being asked ot pay back a few thousand on my loan per year. I could easily have paid more.

    Amy – I think this is what shits me the most about the loans scheme.
    The current repayment mechanisms send the wrong message in terms of debt management.

    Contra this, I am getting gored about $800/month – effectively mandating that I must pay off my loan within a year because I have potential to do so – but without the IRD even acknowledging that I have a mortgage, am the sole breadwinner in my household and have 2 kids to feed.
    Essentially, I am paying interest (but to the bank) as these repayments are facilitated via my revolving credit mortgage.

    Boohoo for me for wanting to complete a substandard yet overpriced post-grad dip while working and breeding I guess

    Comment by Gregor W — March 14, 2012 @ 10:18 am

  40. “Scrap student loans? That’s an Alliance policy.”

    Just goes to show … if you go far enough to one extreme of the political multiverse, you fall out of it and emerge into the opposite extreme of another. Redbaiter just went from loathing socialists to being one. Just like Matthew Hooten. And Danyl. And you, Graeme. And me, too, obviously. And all the rest of you out there. You know who you are. Or, you would, if you weren’t such stupid communists.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 14, 2012 @ 10:21 am

  41. To [Joyce], education is primarily a vocational commodity that is purchased with the sole aim of securing employment.

    Clearly this explains why he studied zoology and then went on to build a career as a radio entrepreneur.

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 14, 2012 @ 10:25 am

  42. Well Lew, you are the expert on selling out to the PR flacks so I suppose you’ve got the insight the rest of us are lacking.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 14, 2012 @ 10:31 am

  43. Classy. Trotteresque innuendo-laden smears are so you, Sanc. Yes, how terrible it is that people should have to work for a living, and in the private sector, too! Shocking.

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 14, 2012 @ 10:35 am

  44. Actually, I apologise Lew. Put it down to work pressure.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 14, 2012 @ 10:51 am

  45. Thank you, Sanc, that’s mighty decent. If you care to know what it is I actually do, I’m happy to discuss it in email.

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 14, 2012 @ 10:53 am

  46. Hooray!

    Now, if only MUNZ and POA were regular readers/commentators here, maybe we could heal that rift, too … .

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 14, 2012 @ 10:55 am

  47. Hasn’t Sanc/Tom written before that he enjoyed the RWC fireworks display from a yacht in the viaduct?
    And written on Brian Edwards blog that he had enjoyed the occasional fox hunt.
    And doesn’t he write of anecdotes from the wealthy classes that he regularly dines with?

    When the revolution comes sanc/tom, you will be one of the first up against the wall.

    Seriously, because of his shitty overblown satire, his preachy attitude and apparent love of blood sports, my money is on sanc/tom being Bob Jones.

    Comment by lurker — March 14, 2012 @ 10:57 am

  48. I guess there’s an argument to be made that their disagreement could be put down to “work pressure” also.

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 14, 2012 @ 10:57 am

  49. “I guess there’s an argument to be made that their disagreement could be put down to “work pressure” also.”

    Certainly not on the part of MUNZ … from what I hear, they are a bunch of lazy lay-abouts, who want paid to sleep. Or something. Maybe I should read something other than the Herald and Kiwiblog?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 14, 2012 @ 11:05 am

  50. And clearly, for POAL, the recent spate of settlement meetings, media interviews, hiring and firing is actual work that the bosses, by definition, aren’t used to. Poor dearies. Cup of tea and a lie (down).

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 14, 2012 @ 11:08 am

  51. You forgot to mention leaking material to Cameron Slater. Anyone would need an extended rest after that (as well as a very long, hot shower).

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 14, 2012 @ 11:18 am

  52. Anyone would need an extended rest after that (as well as a very long, hot shower).

    Seems there are people who literally revel in that kind of thing:
    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/deep-inside-the-chain-pub-piss-dungeon

    Comment by Joe W — March 14, 2012 @ 11:24 am

  53. Hi @Hugh.

    it sounds like you think that he would have been just as wrong had he instead said “We’re not pursuing this policy because it would make our voters vote for our opponents”.

    Well, yeah. But I wouldn’t care if he just said “we’re not doing this because people don’t want it”, or “because people won’t vote for us in future even though we’d like to do it”, either of which could be justified. I thought I said this initially, sorry if it didn’t come through that way. But he didn’t — he effectively said they’re not doing it because it might cause non-voters to start participating and he’d rather they didn’t, hence the policy decision.

    It was probably just a slip of the tongue and I’m sure all sides think about this kind of stuff in some respect. But if it’s acceptable with student loan policy, is it acceptable with health policy or childhood education policy or student loan policy? If the parliamentary inquiry of the 2011 general election returns recommending something like making voting compulsory for all NZ Citizens (a-la Australia), or other measures to increase voter turnout, and Key’s National-led government turns it down for any reason, what then? But my intended point was just that an opposition really should pick this up on it being said out loud in public as if it’s acceptable to use policy implementation to encourage reduced voter turnout in places where it’s favourable for the residing government

    Comment by MikeM — March 14, 2012 @ 11:25 am

  54. “Redbaiter just went from loathing socialists to being one. ”

    I’d wager he wasn’t advocating scrapping student loans in favour of state-funded education. more likely just scrapping education altogether so no one will be indoctrinated and we can all get as smart as him by attending the university of life

    Comment by nommopilot — March 14, 2012 @ 11:26 am

  55. Whupps. Re-reading my first paragraph, forget the “well yeah” remark. (Cut n’ paste screwup.) I think it’d be fine if he’d said “We’re not pursuing this policy because it would make our voters vote for our opponents”.

    Comment by MikeM — March 14, 2012 @ 11:29 am

  56. I’d wager he wasn’t advocating scrapping student loans in favour of state-funded education. more likely just scrapping education altogether so no one will be indoctrinated and we can all get as smart as him by attending the university of life

    Bingo.

    Comment by Smiley — March 14, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

  57. @ Gregor W. Yes, it is a weird system in that it makes no allowance for your other costs. I know people who have kids and are really struggling and find it harder because of their student loan. Whereas single people who are working full-time could easily pay more but don’t because the minimum loan repayment level is low.Can you claim back the overpayments at the end of the year with your tax return though?

    Comment by Amy — March 14, 2012 @ 2:08 pm

  58. “I think it’d be fine if he’d said “We’re not pursuing this policy because it would make our voters vote for our opponents”.”

    Then I guess you don’t really feel that politicians have “a responsibility from the election to implement what they think is good policy”? Because that seems to contradict what you’re saying now.

    I honestly can’t condemn Key for pursuing a policy that will suppress voter turnout for Labour. It’s an artifact of having a competitive political system and I really don’t see any way around it. Sure, it’s not pretty, but I think the calculus is always going to be there unless we move to a consensual model (and bear in mind that I am not advocating that – that brings its own problems that IMHO are potentially even greater)

    Comment by Hugh — March 14, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

  59. “It sends the wrong message to young people, it tells them to go out and borrow debt”

    Um, well how about using some money to reduce the cost of tertiary education, John? Since you were one of many who have benfited (to the tune of $50million) from having cheap tertiary education? Are we to assume that you wouldn’t borrow the money for your education if there was no other option? That would make you a lot poorer and perhaps a bit less inclined to watch the rubgy from a box seat!

    Comment by Daniel Lang — March 14, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

  60. Yeah yeah yeah Daniel, 2012 is different to 25 years ago. Stop living in the past.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788621

    Comment by Me Too — March 14, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

  61. @Hugh: Then I guess you don’t really feel that politicians have “a responsibility from the election to implement what they think is good policy”? Because that seems to contradict what you’re saying now.

    In more complete context from #14 I really said “National and coalition partners have a both a mandate and a responsibility from the election to implement what they think is good policy, or at least do things that they believe will increase votes in future”. Granted that “increase votes in the future” was lazy when I should have referred more specifically to doing what the electorate wants if the preferred policy’s too unpopular.

    I guess I’ll just disagree with you about using political power to suppress undesirable voter turnout. I realise it probably happens anyway here and there, but I still think the practice should be stamped out as much as possible rather than treated as an acceptable way of forming policy. If parties are unpopular with potential voters, they should be working to convince people they have good ideas instead of discouraging them from turning up on election day. JK’s quote just twisted my stomach more than usual when I read it.

    Comment by MikeM — March 14, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

  62. @ Amy

    Can you claim back the overpayments at the end of the year with your tax return though?

    Apparently, my gross salary can stand a 10% overnight tax hike to pay back 8k in 10 months from my nett earnings. I haven’t been advised by IRD of any max repayment schedule which would offer some relief.

    So accordingly by the Kafkaesque logic of IRD, if I have the nominal ability to pay my interest free loan, I am compelled to repay it as fast as possible without recourse, even if I have to pay interest to a commercial bank to do so.

    Fuckers.

    Comment by Gregor W — March 14, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

  63. Really Gregor W, stop whinging. Didn’t you learn anything from Pete George? Suck it up man. Work days and have your significant other work nights while you look after the kids (how hard can it be – they’re sleeping!) like hard-working sensible ordinary Kiwis have always done.

    Comment by Me Too — March 14, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

  64. Yes 2012 is a different time from 25 years ago, however John Key always seems to have an attitude about tertiary students that is dismissive and treats them in the same category, more or less, as beneficiaries. The fact is that they’re doing something to try and get ahead, if interest was imposed then a lot less of them would be inclined to study at a tertiary level, and we already have a deficit of university students working in this country because of the policies that are brought in as a direct result of this poor perception of students.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — March 15, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

  65. Here’s me thinking interest-free student loans it allowed young people to get a tertiary education they otherwise couldn’t afford because they CAN’T actually earn much of an income while studying…and especially now that National has ‘minimum-waged-ified” every job out there.

    Key and National clearly haven’t got a clue.

    Comment by Steve (@nza1) — March 15, 2012 @ 7:35 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers

%d bloggers like this: