Hope that arrest a few more defaulters. It's not free money. This guy will most likely plead diplomatic immunity or the like.

If as the story goes the reminders and notices were going to the wrong address then I can understand his surprise and upset at being arrested at the airport. However it does not excuse the default on loan repayments.

There is no Diplomatic immunity, if there were he not have been arrested .

The Comments section is running pretty much in favour of him being arrested

 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11577828#comment-form

Although I do think he was taking the Pi$$ when he talked to the paper,

""I sat there, ate my three pieces of KFC and the police came and said I was under arrest for my student loan. I looked around; I thought it was some kind of joke.""

I wonder if he mentioned his $130,000 student loan debt when he applied for his $300,000 mortgage.

Fortunately I was educated before student loans were invented!

Mark:

 

Apparently you should be righteously offended if you get treated as a thief for not paying back your student loan from 20 years ago!

Annoys me because I've done the right thing and stayed in NZ and paid off my loan whilst others have disappeared - if you had no intention to pay back the student loan then you should never take taken one out and signed the bottom line but apparently for some people, like the aforementioned individual in the article apparently the rules don't apply to you if you say they don't apply to you.

Although people quickly forget. But I seem to recall when the whole student loan thing came in, that the government reassured people that they wouldn't be treated heavy handed, should they not be able to pay back their loan. Although it is probably very difficult to find any details about this 2+ decades later. Really we shouldn't have student loans, as it is a flawed system, where personal debt will just keep going up and up. Makes the governments books look better though. Instead a bonding scheme would have been far better. Bonding schemes are used a lot in many industries.

kawaii:

 

Mark:

 

Apparently you should be righteously offended if you get treated as a thief for not paying back your student loan from 20 years ago!

 

Annoys me because I've done the right thing and stayed in NZ and paid off my loan whilst others have disappeared - if you had no intention to pay back the student loan then you should never take taken one out and signed the bottom line but apparently for some people, like the aforementioned individual in the article apparently the rules don't apply to you if you say they don't apply to you.

 

If you stay in NZ, then you don't have to pay interest on it anymore, so overtime the amount will inflate away, while you also pay off a contribution. But really the taxpayer is paying that interest on the amount lent to borrowers. So if you didn't get a loan, then as a tax payer, you are subsidising those people that did get a loan. So it really makes sense to get a loan if you are a student, and then pay it off when you go overseas. If you move overseas, you pay interest. So that debt is componding, and means the government makes some money, although it is probably only covering inflation and borrowing costs. I would be more for them raising the interest rate on people living overseas.

As someone who was caught in the first year of the scheme my sympathy is zero.

(from the bad old days when interest was charged from when you used it, no interest right-offs, no accelerated payback schemes for me)

You know the rules when you sign up for them.

Scheme is has now been in place from before the incoming 1st year students were born...

A.

(Grumpy bastard who paid his off while overseas the year before the 10% rebate scheme came in)

afe66:

 

As someone who was caught in the first year of the scheme my sympathy is zero.

 

(from the bad old days when interest was charged from when you used it, no interest right-offs, no accelerated payback schemes for me)

 

You know the rules when you sign up for them.

 

Scheme is has now been in place from before the incoming 1st year students were born...

 

 

 

A.

 

 

 

(Grumpy bastard who paid his off while overseas the year before the 10% rebate scheme came in)

 

I know how you feel, although you can be sure that you paid less in fees,  than they are paying now. When I was at uni, you had to also pay interest while you were studying and not earning. It was a vote buying exercise when it was removed, to get the student vote. I think they can change the rules and start charging interest again if you remain in NZ(although not while studying fulltime),  as we don't currently have a problem with people leaving NZ. Infact people are now coming back. It would mean a lot of early repayments would occur.  Maybe it will also help to increase inflation, as there will be less disposable income in the economy to buy stuff, which will help push prices up due to less demand.

mattwnz:

 

afe66:

 

As someone who was caught in the first year of the scheme my sympathy is zero.

 

(from the bad old days when interest was charged from when you used it, no interest right-offs, no accelerated payback schemes for me)

 

You know the rules when you sign up for them.

 

Scheme is has now been in place from before the incoming 1st year students were born...

 

 

 

A.

 

 

 

(Grumpy bastard who paid his off while overseas the year before the 10% rebate scheme came in)

 

 

 

 

I know how you feel, although you can be sure that you paid less in fees,  than they are paying now. When I was at uni, you had to also pay interest while you were studying and not earning. It was a vote buying exercise when it was removed, to get the student vote. I think they can change the rules and start charging interest again if you remain in NZ(although not while studying fulltime),  as we don't currently have a problem with people leaving NZ. Infact people are now coming back. It would mean a lot of early repayments would occur.  Maybe it will also help to increase inflation, as there will be less disposable income in the economy to buy stuff, which will help push prices up due to less demand.

 

I think you'll find the opposite would happen - lower consumer demand keeps inflation low - hence central banks drop interest rates to stimulate demand when inflation goes low - and hence central banks with sub 1% interest rates already are helpless when inflation stays stubbornly low

mattwnz:

 

I know how you feel, although you can be sure that you paid less in fees,  than they are paying now. When I was at uni, you had to also pay interest while you were studying and not earning. It was a vote buying exercise when it was removed, to get the student vote. I think they can change the rules and start charging interest again if you remain in NZ(although not while studying fulltime),  as we don't currently have a problem with people leaving NZ. Infact people are now coming back. It would mean a lot of early repayments would occur.  Maybe it will also help to increase inflation, as there will be less disposable income in the economy to buy stuff, which will help push prices up due to less demand.

 

More complicationed in the past, when I started there was a two tier system in fees too. (not counting living costs). "Studyright"

If you already had a degree your fees were higher than other members of your class. ie $5000+ vrs 2000 (in 1993 money).

These went up each year so by end my fees were $7000 per year (net 84K in 1996 money).

So in real terms I paid _more_ then than I would have doing the same course now, (plus add 7% per year in interest added while studying) - salaries higher now too.

Debt long gone now.

I remember the delight in getting that letter from IRD saying balance was zero after more than a decade of getting them.

Q?How many GKers who have young children are putting money aside for their university fees....

A.

mattwnz:

 

Although people quickly forget. But I seem to recall when the whole student loan thing came in, that the government reassured people that they wouldn't be treated heavy handed, should they not be able to pay back their loan. Although it is probably very difficult to find any details about this 2+ decades later. Really we shouldn't have student loans, as it is a flawed system, where personal debt will just keep going up and up. Makes the governments books look better though. Instead a bonding scheme would have been far better. Bonding schemes are used a lot in many industries.

An ideal system would be something like "if you stay in New Zealand and work full time for 5 years then we'll wipe the slate clean or at least wipe the debt off for those papers that you passed so then there is a stronger incentive to encourage people at university not to stuff around and fail paper after paper whilst they're trying to 'find themselves'.

mattwnz:

 

kawaii:

 

Mark:

 

Apparently you should be righteously offended if you get treated as a thief for not paying back your student loan from 20 years ago!

 

Annoys me because I've done the right thing and stayed in NZ and paid off my loan whilst others have disappeared - if you had no intention to pay back the student loan then you should never take taken one out and signed the bottom line but apparently for some people, like the aforementioned individual in the article apparently the rules don't apply to you if you say they don't apply to you.

 

If you stay in NZ, then you don't have to pay interest on it anymore, so overtime the amount will inflate away, while you also pay off a contribution. But really the taxpayer is paying that interest on the amount lent to borrowers. So if you didn't get a loan, then as a tax payer, you are subsidising those people that did get a loan. So it really makes sense to get a loan if you are a student, and then pay it off when you go overseas. If you move overseas, you pay interest. So that debt is componding, and means the government makes some money, although it is probably only covering inflation and borrowing costs. I would be more for them raising the interest rate on people living overseas.

As my understanding the money lent comes from the reserve bank and the reserve bank is owned by the government itself thus any interest that is accrued on it comes back to the government which means the real interest rate in terms of overhead and administration is probably very low - the amount quoted in the election when it was introduced wasn't the amount that it cost the government but rather it was the amount that the government gave up in terms of revenue derived form charging interest on student loans. The problem that exists today is the cost and the waste because if there is a move to free tertiary education then it'll require getting rid of large amounts of bloat and waste to make it affordable. For example, get rid of marketing and advertising for public universities for starters, how many polytechnics and universities do we need? would it be better to rationalise them as to avoid duplication of administration, campuses etc?

I have no sympathy at all.

There were a section of loan holders who thought they could just take off and ignore repayments and as long as they were not living in NZ, who cares?

I lived in Australia for about 10 years with my partner and we had combined, about $75k when leaving uni at Massey and prob about $45k when we were overseas (much better pay and career opportunities) and before, it was very well known about the risk with defaulting on your loan and the potential implications (as has just happened).

While overseas, we always kept up with our repayments and communicated with the loan office and on occasions had to get extensions as the repayments were often in quarterly instalments and accruing interest.

On return to NZ, 5 years ago we made the most of the interest free conditions and got rid of them, well one of them anyway  :)

afe66:

 

mattwnz:

 

I know how you feel, although you can be sure that you paid less in fees,  than they are paying now. When I was at uni, you had to also pay interest while you were studying and not earning. It was a vote buying exercise when it was removed, to get the student vote. I think they can change the rules and start charging interest again if you remain in NZ(although not while studying fulltime),  as we don't currently have a problem with people leaving NZ. Infact people are now coming back. It would mean a lot of early repayments would occur.  Maybe it will also help to increase inflation, as there will be less disposable income in the economy to buy stuff, which will help push prices up due to less demand.

 

 

More complicationed in the past, when I started there was a two tier system in fees too. (not counting living costs). "Studyright"

 

If you already had a degree your fees were higher than other members of your class. ie $5000+ vrs 2000 (in 1993 money).

 

These went up each year so by end my fees were $7000 per year (net 84K in 1996 money).

 

 

 

So in real terms I paid _more_ then than I would have doing the same course now, (plus add 7% per year in interest added while studying) - salaries higher now too.

 

 

 

Debt long gone now.

 

I remember the delight in getting that letter from IRD saying balance was zero after more than a decade of getting them.

 

 

 

 

 

Q?How many GKers who have young children are putting money aside for their university fees....

 

 

 

A.

 

 

 

Not I, said the wolf.

My brother in the USA does though - 2 of them. He's looking at upwards of $40,000 a year! A number of universities there have very generous grants and bursaries and one of his sons is applying to Brown, for a full tuition scholarship. Do they do that here?