The interest on my student loan is more than I’m paying back. Help!

One thing that is emerging for students on the various different plans for UGs and PGs around the four nations is the issue of seeing their loan balance going up, even after making payments for a full year – or in some cases, several years.

Jim is an Associate Editor (SUs) at Wonkhe

There’s no shortage of shock on social media from disgruntled graduates who can’t believe that they will “never” pay off their student loan.

For most on Plan 2 – mainly English domiciled UGs who enrolled before 2022, and everyone (still) in Wales, it partly reflects a comms issue.

For a large proportion of them – especially those doing more than your standard three year bachelors – the whole idea was that they “never” pay it off.

The write off of the loan at 30 years used to be the subsidy that made the system progressive – but as I’ve often said on here, the worst way to spend subsidy if you want its recipients to be grateful is on one that only kicks in in 30 years or so, and only then if you’re relatively economically unsuccessful in comparison to other graduates.

The perception problem – which makes it less likely that Labour will take steps to make the system more progressive – has been lessened somewhat by the switch in 2022 to Plan 5, which levies interest “only” at RPI rather than Plan 2’s RPI+3%, albeit with a cap (if commercial banks’ average interest rate is lower than what you would be charged based on RPI, a temporary interest rate cap is applied).

The problem is that inflation has been persistently high – and so that “loan balance going up even after making payments” problem has been getting worse.

As it stands, Plan 5 loans have a lower repayment threshold than Plan 2 loans, with the Plan 5 threshold set at £25,000 (up to and including the 2026-27 financial year), compared to £27,295 (up to and including the 2024-25 financial year), with both increasing annually by RPI thereafter.

As of right now, the interest rates are as follows:

For Plan 2, there’s a base RPI of 3.2%. Whilst studying and until the April after leaving the course, that’s RPI (3.2%) + 3% (6.2%). Post-study, there’s variable interest, dependent upon income. That means RPI (3.2%), rising on a sliding scale up to RPI + 3% (6.2%).

  • £28,470 or less = 3.2%
  • £28,471 to £51,245 = 3.2%, plus up to 3%
  • £51,245 or more = 6.2%

The sliding scale works like this. Since 2012, we’ve had a three-band structure – below the lower repayment threshold interest is just inflation (RPI), above the upper threshold it’s inflation plus three percentage points, and between the two the rate “slides” up in proportion to income. The sliding element is expressed as a linear formula, with the +3 per cent increment applied gradually according to how far an individual’s salary sits between the lower and upper thresholds.

To do that, we start with the RPI inflation rate, work out how far income sits between the lower and upper repayment thresholds, turn that position into a proportion (so if you’re exactly halfway, the proportion is one-half), and take that proportion of 3 percentage points – finally adding the result onto RPI.

Confusingly, a borrower’s annual income is assessed over the course of a tax year – from 6 April to 5 April. For borrowers in the UK, HMRC provides this information through PAYE or Self Assessment. For borrowers overseas, the Student Loans Company requires direct evidence of income.

At the end of the tax year, the Student Loans Company uses the recorded annual income to decide where the borrower sits in relation to the lower and upper repayment thresholds. The outcome is then applied prospectively. In practice, the revised interest rates for all borrowers – taking account of both the March RPI and the borrower’s income band – come into effect from the following September. That rate holds for the year ahead until the next round of RPI and income data becomes available.

For Plan 5, things are much simpler. The applicable RPI rate is also 3.2% – during and after study. The repayment rate is also consistent for both Plan 2 and Plan 5 – 9 per cent of everything earned above the current annual salary threshold.

Let’s set aside when (if) borrowers will “ever” repay in full (ie by the time the loan is written off). What we should do is look at how much you have to be earning to get to a point where you’re making a dent in the principal, and actually reducing your balance.

I’ve made up three students here – the figures in Column 1 are notional loan balances on graduation.

CaseBalance used"Break even" salary
Plan 2 – UG, £45k£45,000£59,470
Plan 2 – UG, £50k£50,000£62,914
Plan 2 – Medicine, £60k£60,000£69,803
Plan 5 – UG, £40k£40,000£39,222
Plan 5 – UG, £50k£50,000£42,778
Plan 5 – Medicine, £60k£60,000£46,333

That table right there is the killer political problem for the government. Higher interest rates are what make the system more progressive when coupled with a shorter repayment period – richer grads paid more.

Now we have a lower interest rate (albeit set at RPI), grads are still struggling to pay back more than interest every year – so the interest rate cut isn’t actually being felt by those it was aimed at. And because, via the lower repayment threshold, more people are actually paying back, more are “feeling” the injustice.

In Scotland, a good wedge of the notional HMT subsidy is spent on a (much) higher repayment threshold of (this year) £32,745. That comes at a cost, but does mean you get far fewer unhappy graduates watching that loan balance tick up in their twenties when they’re already repaying. Clever.

The government could raise the interest rate again – perhaps not by the full 3 per cent – to notionally raise more money in the future and therefore raise what can be loaned out now. But the politics of interest rates are toxic either way – and it’s pretty much impossible to tweak the system such that it’s a) more progressive eventually, b) feels progressive now, and c) calms down the medics on either plan.

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A Lecturer
2 days ago

Surely the rational thing is to think about the real terms value, rather than the cash value, of the outstanding loan balance over time? If interest is set at N% over inflation then, roughly speaking, any borrower repaying more than N% per year is reducing the real value of their loan. In this viewpoint the inflation rate isn’t really material: higher inflation might mean the superficial cash balance increases, but in a world where salaries etc have increased even faster, that is still progress towards repayment. But of course I realise people are not entirely rational about such things and… Read more »

Paul Wiltshire
1 day ago

Student Loans are a loathsome burden for society to dump on to unsuspecting young adults. They trust us, and go along with it, and enrol in HE in huge numbers, yet the system stuffs them.
Having to deal with a lifetime loan for a course that actually has improved your career prospects is bad enough, but having a loan for a course that ended up with just a minimum wage trainee entry level job that you could have easily done as a school leaver aged 18 is a betrayal.

Pete
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul Wiltshire

Would they be any happier if they had no loan and instead had to pay a graduate tax of 9% of their earnings over £25,000 in perpetuity?

Paul Wiltshire
1 day ago
Reply to  Pete

No. We need to fix the problem by only encouraging those school leavers to go to University who have a much higher chance of actually getting a decent career due to the degree, so that they will have a far higher chance of paying off the loan. The current system of ever higher %HE participation is drawing in far too many young adults who won’t benefit career pay wise at all and will be doomed to a lifetime of debt for a degree that didn’t do them any good. I think that HE% participation should come down drastically.

A Lecturer
4 hours ago
Reply to  Paul Wiltshire

There is certainly something in what you say, but if a “decent career” is defined as earning enough to pay off the loan, that model of HE would exclude future schoolteachers, nurses and most of the other vital public sector roles which now require a degree. One can probably debate if a degree should really be required for all of them, but it is hard to see a return to non-graduate teachers as a step forward for society.

kerrie
13 hours ago
Reply to  Pete

Maybe, though when graduate taxes were first suggested in the 1990’s rates were not as high as 9%. Tax is deducted at source so there is no stress over the actual amount. Loans cause stress.

Andy
1 day ago

I think the fundamental point of the whole system is that it is for practical purposes a graduate tax but it would be political suicide to call it that. It has many elements of “normal” taxes: Those on low income pay none, those on higher incomes pay an increasing percentage of their total income (this is done through the implementation of the salary threshold). The only element which varies from a conventional tax is that you can actually pay it off.

Paul Wiltshire
1 day ago
Reply to  Andy

“Those on low income pay none” is a highly misleading statement. It gives the impression that there is no downside at all , as you may end up paying nothing. The reality is completely different : – 1 – A very small number of graduates will pay none – and for those that do, it will mean that they have spent three years studying for a degree that proved of no use to them career pay wise , and will then burden the general tax payer with a £50-£6ok loan to write off. So it is hardly a non consequential… Read more »