More student protests incomming...
Scroll to see replies
I think marching for unemployment might have an effect. You people are too negative.
If we march the government might see that if they spend more on sectors like construction (which as we saw declined by 13% over the first quarter) will probably not only decrease unemplyment due to the creation of jobs but this will stimulate the economy because as more people earn they then spend that money. Which eventually runs down to the government through taxes.
As for student fees, I'm not bothered about the cost as it's seems like a lot of countries have high fees (e.g. America) it's the paying off structure I'm not cool with. For example someone who earns 100K plus pays ( I cannot remember the number but it was close to the one I'm about to give and these were numbers given from BBC Radio 4s Money Programme) 50K less than someone earning 40K because they pay it off so much quicker.
As well as this, student finance needs to be completely reformed. There should be a one amount for all (except cases where you have dependants).
If we march the government might see that if they spend more on sectors like construction (which as we saw declined by 13% over the first quarter) will probably not only decrease unemplyment due to the creation of jobs but this will stimulate the economy because as more people earn they then spend that money. Which eventually runs down to the government through taxes.
As for student fees, I'm not bothered about the cost as it's seems like a lot of countries have high fees (e.g. America) it's the paying off structure I'm not cool with. For example someone who earns 100K plus pays ( I cannot remember the number but it was close to the one I'm about to give and these were numbers given from BBC Radio 4s Money Programme) 50K less than someone earning 40K because they pay it off so much quicker.
As well as this, student finance needs to be completely reformed. There should be a one amount for all (except cases where you have dependants).
Original post by DarkWhite
That refers to the economic benefit of graduates' learning, not the fees system in its own right.
The fees system makes a loss, and will make more of a loss under the £9k regime, because so many graduates never pay their student loans off in full. It creates a deficit, whereas if the government implemented something along the lines of a graduate tax, it wouldn't; it would make money.
If the fees system were to change, the economic benefit of graduates having degrees would remain.
One estimate is a deficit of £200bn by 2020 (just 8 years) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18101729
The fees system makes a loss, and will make more of a loss under the £9k regime, because so many graduates never pay their student loans off in full. It creates a deficit, whereas if the government implemented something along the lines of a graduate tax, it wouldn't; it would make money.
If the fees system were to change, the economic benefit of graduates having degrees would remain.
One estimate is a deficit of £200bn by 2020 (just 8 years) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18101729
Graduate Tax? What are you smoking? Loads of students comes out in favour of a 'graduate tax' until it comes down to the fact that they've graduated and are suddenly paying this tax.
It has been estimated that if all new students from 2012 paid 3% graduate tax after graduation, the tax would not provide sufficient revenue to fund higher education until 2041–42.
3p in the pound income tax is £30 in every £1000 you earn and on £21,000 salary is £630 annually.
If you come out of university with a pretty average degree like most graduates and are unlucky enough to be stuck stacking shelves at Poundland on little better than minimum wage for a while, won't you be ever so glad paying 23% of your £12-14,000 a year when you could be enjoying not paying your loan back until you get a decent job.
Earning £21,000 on the new fees structure and you repay nothing.
(edited 11 years ago)
I used to think the same as you, OP. But very recently I have realised that the youth of today is being guilt-tripped about the state of this country. Who messed it up? Certainly not us. Who should pay for it? Certainly not us. So why does this government punish young people in every imaginable way? The education, work and opportunities of this generation are being compromised because of people like him - of his age - who have by their own fault brought the economy down to its knees.
They can pay.
They can pay.
Original post by YB101
I've never been one for protesting but I most definitely will be there. I just don't understand why we must pay so much more with our future looking so uncertain
if anyone actually knows WHY the costs are increasing please let me know
if anyone actually knows WHY the costs are increasing please let me know
Uni needs fundings .. Most university in USA are funded well and guess what... Most Worlds top unis are in USA. American tuition fee are high as ****. And with current economical situation... Tuition should be high. I dnt support it. It's just I guess there is no choice.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Oh my god. Where do I even begin?
Firstly:
Where is the causal relationship between a march of sweaty, primitive youths marching down a street to spending money on the construction industry? The government has dozens upon dozens of economists and statisticians who carry out cost-benefit analyses of such policy every single day. And you somehow think you know better? Hang your head in shame.
Those figures are far, far from realistic, and thus redundant of any thought. As is the other arrogant claim that a flat rate is the most beneficial for society.
In summary,you haven't got a clue.
Firstly:
Original post by Jeester
I think marching for unemployment might have an effect. You people are too negative.
If we march the government might see that if they spend more on sectors like construction (which as we saw declined by 13% over the first quarter) will probably not only decrease unemplyment due to the creation of jobs but this will stimulate the economy because as more people earn they then spend that money. Which eventually runs down to the government through taxes.
If we march the government might see that if they spend more on sectors like construction (which as we saw declined by 13% over the first quarter) will probably not only decrease unemplyment due to the creation of jobs but this will stimulate the economy because as more people earn they then spend that money. Which eventually runs down to the government through taxes.
Where is the causal relationship between a march of sweaty, primitive youths marching down a street to spending money on the construction industry? The government has dozens upon dozens of economists and statisticians who carry out cost-benefit analyses of such policy every single day. And you somehow think you know better? Hang your head in shame.
Original post by Jeester
As for student fees, I'm not bothered about the cost as it's seems like a lot of countries have high fees (e.g. America) it's the paying off structure I'm not cool with. For example someone who earns 100K plus pays ( I cannot remember the number but it was close to the one I'm about to give and these were numbers given from BBC Radio 4s Money Programme) 50K less than someone earning 40K because they pay it off so much quicker.
As well as this, student finance needs to be completely reformed. There should be a one amount for all (except cases where you have dependants).
As well as this, student finance needs to be completely reformed. There should be a one amount for all (except cases where you have dependants).
Those figures are far, far from realistic, and thus redundant of any thought. As is the other arrogant claim that a flat rate is the most beneficial for society.
In summary,you haven't got a clue.
Original post by ForKicks
Pre-reading! Absolutely everyone does that before starting, lol.
lol hardly anyone does that :L
It seems like NUS presidents will say anything to coax a certain response. I have no more respect for Aaron Porter or Liam Burns than I do for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.
"You've got a lot to be angry about. You've had your education systematically attacked across the board by the coalition. And even if you get to the other end, what have you got to look forward to?"
If anybody thinks they're entitled for the state to give them a personal lifetime guarantee of financial security just because they were one of the many millions who've been shipped into higher education by the truck load, they've got another thing coming. Honestly, what a load of nonsense.
"You've got a lot to be angry about. You've had your education systematically attacked across the board by the coalition. And even if you get to the other end, what have you got to look forward to?"
If anybody thinks they're entitled for the state to give them a personal lifetime guarantee of financial security just because they were one of the many millions who've been shipped into higher education by the truck load, they've got another thing coming. Honestly, what a load of nonsense.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by marcusfox
Graduate Tax? What are you smoking? Loads of students comes out in favour of a 'graduate tax' until it comes down to the fact that they've graduated and are suddenly paying this tax.
It has been estimated that if all new students from 2012 paid 3% graduate tax after graduation, the tax would not provide sufficient revenue to fund higher education until 2041–42.
3p in the pound income tax is £30 in every £1000 you earn and on £21,000 salary is £630 annually.
If you come out of university with a pretty average degree like most graduates and are unlucky enough to be stuck stacking shelves at Poundland on little better than minimum wage for a while, won't you be ever so glad paying 23% of your £12-14,000 a year when you could be enjoying not paying your loan back until you get a decent job.
Earning £21,000 on the new fees structure and you repay nothing.
On £30,000, a graduate tax of 3% would give a repayment of £900 annually. On the new fees structure it is 9% of 9000, which is £810.
It has been estimated that if all new students from 2012 paid 3% graduate tax after graduation, the tax would not provide sufficient revenue to fund higher education until 2041–42.
3p in the pound income tax is £30 in every £1000 you earn and on £21,000 salary is £630 annually.
If you come out of university with a pretty average degree like most graduates and are unlucky enough to be stuck stacking shelves at Poundland on little better than minimum wage for a while, won't you be ever so glad paying 23% of your £12-14,000 a year when you could be enjoying not paying your loan back until you get a decent job.
Earning £21,000 on the new fees structure and you repay nothing.
On £30,000, a graduate tax of 3% would give a repayment of £900 annually. On the new fees structure it is 9% of 9000, which is £810.
I don't smoke.
I didn't say a traditional fixed-rate graduate tax, which may or may not be sustainable depending on rates; but again, I'm not proposing that.
There are plenty of safety nets you can put on such a scheme. Taking your £12-14k salary example, you could set minimum earnings before you start repaying. Those benefiting financially the most from their HE award would easily make up for those not earning the minimum threshold if set appropriately. Or you could set a grace period to allow for further training for professions.
Not sure where 23% comes from?
Those on lower incomes would benefit the most financially from a graduate tax if set out with appropriate measures.
NUS Blueprint (http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/350/NUS_Blueprint_Summary_report_final.pdf) is an alternative graduate tax-like system which held up to analysis.
Of course, no system is perfect, but most proposals are better than the status quo.
Original post by Flying Cookie
I used to think the same as you, OP. But very recently I have realised that the youth of today is being guilt-tripped about the state of this country. Who messed it up? Certainly not us. Who should pay for it? Certainly not us. So why does this government punish young people in every imaginable way? The education, work and opportunities of this generation are being compromised because of people like him - of his age - who have by their own fault brought the economy down to its knees.
They can pay.
They can pay.
Capitalism isn't based on a system of 'fairness' or 'equality', it's based on competitiveness. Sometimes you have to take a dump on people who don't deserve it to remain fiscally competitive in a global market. You may put it down to 'punishment', but I'd much rather bare the so called 'punishment' than live in some Greek meltdown right now. I'm not advocating fiscal Darwinism, that's just the world we live in. Comparatively speaking, the system benefits middle class Guardianistas like yourselves inordinately more-so than in other parts of the world. Count yourself lucky you weren't born in a Bangladeshi rice field.
I'm a social democrat, trade unionist and left wing progressive.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Flying Cookie
I used to think the same as you, OP. But very recently I have realised that the youth of today is being guilt-tripped about the state of this country. Who messed it up? Certainly not us. Who should pay for it? Certainly not us. So why does this government punish young people in every imaginable way? The education, work and opportunities of this generation are being compromised because of people like him - of his age - who have by their own fault brought the economy down to its knees.
They can pay.
They can pay.
That has gone through my mind however unless the country brings down its deficit and starts to pay off the debt (over £1 Trillion - http://www.debtbombshell.com/) , we'll end up loosing out even more in the long term.
Original post by Fynch101
Oh my god. Where do I even begin?
Firstly:
Where is the causal relationship between a march of sweaty, primitive youths marching down a street to spending money on the construction industry? The government has dozens upon dozens of economists and statisticians who carry out cost-benefit analyses of such policy every single day. And you somehow think you know better? Hang your head in shame.
Those figures are far, far from realistic, and thus redundant of any thought. As is the other arrogant claim that a flat rate is the most beneficial for society.
In summary,you haven't got a clue.
Firstly:
Where is the causal relationship between a march of sweaty, primitive youths marching down a street to spending money on the construction industry? The government has dozens upon dozens of economists and statisticians who carry out cost-benefit analyses of such policy every single day. And you somehow think you know better? Hang your head in shame.
Those figures are far, far from realistic, and thus redundant of any thought. As is the other arrogant claim that a flat rate is the most beneficial for society.
In summary,you haven't got a clue.
Ha!
Wonderful.
So those governments and basic economic theory that AD is influenced by government spending (along with other things) and as AD increases so does the economy. It is basically a measure of this.
As well as this, it's not just a mach for "Sweaty, primative youths" especially as they are university students so can hardly be called primative.
But as you should know it's not only students who join these marches, I believe last year there were a lot of marches by the unemployed that joined students and this is likely to happen again. As well as this, as a Civil Engineering student
the construction issue jobs directly affects me and all my class mates.
And we relationship between the two is that we are all voting public so when the general election comes round I'm sure these politicans would like to be voted in and as students are probably more likely to vote than alot of others they would stand up and take notice.
As for ths numbers: See here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/rich-will-pay-less-for-university-as-they-face-lower-interest-bills-6444733.html
As for the flat rate, it is more beneficial for students, as I have previously said on many other threads the poor get it so easy at univeristy. As we are all post 18 years old we should all be taken to be responsible for our own finances, basically someone who's parents earn 20K a year gets about 5K a year more than me who's parents earn 60K a year. But my parents couldn't afford to give me 5K, they give me about £400 a year because of the debt they are in. I know it's a personal case and most TSRers hate personal cases but I also know it is the same up and down the country. The poor don't need to get a job to cover university whereise I've been forced to have a job since I was 16 so I could pay for college and now univeristy.
What have you got to say about that?
"Hang [my] head in shame" indeed.
Original post by jumpingjesusholycow
x
Thanks for the video link
Video
You've had EMA stolen...
Since when was refusing to give out free money stealing?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by YMLT
Uni education should be free. Having more Uni graduates means a larger skilled workforce, which gives the government a higher tax income, thus benefiting the entire population.
It's pretty simple economics.
It's pretty simple economics.
Relative to the number of degrees available, I'm pretty sure that only a minority contribute a significant amount to the country.
(E.g. Having an extra 1000 geology graduates each year isn't going to do much in terms of raising tax income)
Original post by Fynch101
Why on earth would you carry our such a significant action without knowledge of the purpose of that action? What does it feel like to be one of the balls in one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle ?
lol what
Original post by Darkphilosopher
Relative to the number of degrees available, I'm pretty sure that only a minority contribute a significant amount to the country.
(E.g. Having an extra 1000 geology graduates each year isn't going to do much in terms of raising tax income)
(E.g. Having an extra 1000 geology graduates each year isn't going to do much in terms of raising tax income)
1000 students with the ability to get a higher paid job is going to be better for the budget than 1000 people sat at home on benefits or earning the minimum wage.
Original post by YMLT
1000 students with the ability to get a higher paid job is going to be better for the budget than 1000 people sat at home on benefits or earning the minimum wage.
More akin to 1000 students with an expensive and useless degree earning the minimum wage.
(Nothing against Geology students btw
)Original post by Jeester
Ha!
Wonderful.
So those governments and basic economic theory that AD is influenced by government spending (along with other things) and as AD increases so does the economy. It is basically a measure of this.
Wonderful.
So those governments and basic economic theory that AD is influenced by government spending (along with other things) and as AD increases so does the economy. It is basically a measure of this.
So you've done A-level economics and you think you know everything. Good for you. The sad thing is, I'm pretty sure you study cost-benefit analyses in A-level, but I guess the analyses themselves must not go that far. It doesn't take a 1st year undergrad to realise there isn't a 1:1 static relationship between government spending and aggregate demand.
Original post by Jeester
As well as this, it's not just a mach for "Sweaty, primative youths" especially as they are university students so can hardly be called primative.
But as you should know it's not only students who join these marches, I believe last year there were a lot of marches by the unemployed that joined students and this is likely to happen again. As well as this, as a Civil Engineering student
the construction issue jobs directly affects me and all my class mates.
And we relationship between the two is that we are all voting public so when the general election comes round I'm sure these politicans would like to be voted in and as students are probably more likely to vote than alot of others they would stand up and take notice.
As well as this, it's not just a mach for "Sweaty, primative youths" especially as they are university students so can hardly be called primative.
But as you should know it's not only students who join these marches, I believe last year there were a lot of marches by the unemployed that joined students and this is likely to happen again. As well as this, as a Civil Engineering student
the construction issue jobs directly affects me and all my class mates.
And we relationship between the two is that we are all voting public so when the general election comes round I'm sure these politicans would like to be voted in and as students are probably more likely to vote than alot of others they would stand up and take notice.
The argument they need your votes is pathetic given that over 60% of students on here don't support this NUS march, and the fact that most people who have voted in this will be students, and thus the poll suffers from serious sample selection bias.
Original post by Jeester
As for ths numbers: See here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/rich-will-pay-less-for-university-as-they-face-lower-interest-bills-6444733.html
As for the flat rate, it is more beneficial for students, as I have previously said on many other threads the poor get it so easy at univeristy. As we are all post 18 years old we should all be taken to be responsible for our own finances, basically someone who's parents earn 20K a year gets about 5K a year more than me who's parents earn 60K a year. But my parents couldn't afford to give me 5K, they give me about £400 a year because of the debt they are in. I know it's a personal case and most TSRers hate personal cases but I also know it is the same up and down the country. The poor don't need to get a job to cover university whereise I've been forced to have a job since I was 16 so I could pay for college and now univeristy.
What have you got to say about that?
"Hang [my] head in shame" indeed.
As for ths numbers: See here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/rich-will-pay-less-for-university-as-they-face-lower-interest-bills-6444733.html
As for the flat rate, it is more beneficial for students, as I have previously said on many other threads the poor get it so easy at univeristy. As we are all post 18 years old we should all be taken to be responsible for our own finances, basically someone who's parents earn 20K a year gets about 5K a year more than me who's parents earn 60K a year. But my parents couldn't afford to give me 5K, they give me about £400 a year because of the debt they are in. I know it's a personal case and most TSRers hate personal cases but I also know it is the same up and down the country. The poor don't need to get a job to cover university whereise I've been forced to have a job since I was 16 so I could pay for college and now univeristy.
What have you got to say about that?
"Hang [my] head in shame" indeed.
You can't just copy a link to an article and expect it to make sense, which it didn't (It refer's to career earnings, and is impossible to replicate what they claim the results to be).
As for your argument about a flat rate of tax - how do you know its the same up and down the country? What exactly do you know about income distribution, wealth, welfare systems etc? Ever done anything other than pithy, small-sample qualitative analysis?
Original post by YB101
lol what
So the government makes the action of increasing the fees cap to £9k, and so you react angrily about it and think it is wrong. Equivalently, someone holds one of the balls in a newton's cradle in suspension, before letting go, at which point gravity and newton's laws ensure that the ball at the other end of the cradle reacts approximately immediately with a similar swinging motion.
Do you understand the metaphor now?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 2023 King's Speech
- Farmers protests across Europe: are the farmers right?
- Should I factor in AI when chosing a university degree?
- Edexcel GCSE 2023 Early Elizabethan England predicted questions
- GCSE Early Elizabethan England 16 marker Attempt
- History A level- themes in Religious conflict in the Church 1529-1570
- Just how bad are SOAS protests and strikes? Did it affect you?
- Top universities ‘will turn away more UK students’
- history 2023 predictions gcse questions
- Can you go to another Uni's Careers Fair?
- Virgin Shaming, and You
- Student Finance application & Parent's redundancy
- Eligibility for ADG
- step parents and student finance
- Can an independent student have an LTD company and benefit from student financing?
- Household income for mature student whilst partner on maternity leave.
- Parents rental income
- Money
- Accommodation and university fees
- Wrong income given
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
Zoom to Zoology? Uni open days, applications & more 2021-Present - a parents takeLast reply 12 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 18 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
852
Last reply 23 minutes ago
The Official Funding questions/moans/possible joy ThreadPosted 23 minutes ago
Student Finance applications for Part Time studentsPosted 28 minutes ago
Better Uni for Master decree in Business SustainalibityLast reply 29 minutes ago
I want to quit physio, maybe to start a career in ITLast reply 34 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 34 minutes ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 35 minutes ago
Do you guys reckon I could get an offer for Warwick PPE?Last reply 37 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 39 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
