Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Are students arrogant for wanting subsidised university education?

Scroll to see replies

That's an argument against having student loans at all and doesn't really come anywhere near the point I made. The 'tax' you're referring to is called 'paying back the loan money you owe someone' and complaining about having to pay more because the superior education you received now makes you earn a lot more than you would've otherwise is like the definition of first-world problems. £21k is hardly the worst money to live on, so nothing stops you from dodging SLC for twenty years.

That's not really a valid point, because you obviously don't take into account the cost of living, inflation, Purchasing power parity, and various essentials need to live in this "First world"

However, I agree, that without it you wouldn't be able to earn any sort of wage, and we should of course pay back the money to society (Not someone lol, it's society, through tax...and maybe bonds lol that have paid for our education)

The simple truth is, if you take care of what you have got, it will probably take care of you..........Government: education : society: Wellbeing.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 41

nulli tertius

Original post by JakeyKakey

On the other hand, you are getting paid 40k. Sounds like a first-world problem if I ever heard one.

Anyone earning say £25K a year will be paying a marginal tax rate of 45%, made up as to income tax 20%, National Insurance contributions 12%, student loan 9%, compulsory pension contribution 4% (from 2018).

Anyone earning say £40K will be paying a marginal tax rate of 55%, being income tax 40%, top up NI 2%, student loan 9%, compulsory pension contribution 4%.

Reply 42

WildThornberry

Original post by Omniscience

The monarchy provides monetary benefit to the country, but that's beside the point. At 18 years of age, the student can already be a worker. Why shouldn't they use their own hard earned money to pay for their education?

I personally have worked since 16 to pay for college (as the bus there and back is £600-£800 a year.)

Without the government subsidising further education, people like me, who have worked to even go to college wouldn't be able to attend university even though I may be more deserving than someone who's family make twice that of mine.

Also I think you're forgetting that people my age make little money. Out of everyone that I know, I make the second most- £7.22 an hour. It's mathematically impossible for someone to attend college and work enough to make the subsidised £29,000 that I need for just tuition, and that's without the £5000-£7000 a year needed to live, in just two years that you can legally work.

I realise you've put you were enlightened by comments but I just thought I'd share my opinion across to other people who might still share your pervious opinion.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 43

sorafdfs

I think the most prominent issue is too many courses at too many universities. It should be quality, not quantity.

Reply 44

lascelles

Original post by Omniscience

Is this perspective wrong? If I am wrong to think this, please do correct me.

I'm suggesting that the students could work (not every job requires a degree) and then pay for their education.

I've been working full time for 5 years since leaving school. I still wouldn't be able to afford the tuition fees, let alone living costs of going to university. (I'm giving up work to go to uni this year)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 45

k9markiii

Original post by Omniscience

Most students go to university when they are 18. They are recognised as adults by law.

These students have not paid into the system. They have been recipients of the state, not the contributors. (I admit that a small percentage of students work, but generally it is not the case - students receive more from the system than they contribute via taxes.) Do the students deserve subsidised education (the government pays money to universities, which acts as a subsidy)? Is it the responsibility of the government to provide cheap education to adults?

They are not children anymore, but the attitude exhibited by some students suggests otherwise.

Discuss.

EDIT: Well, a number of convincing responses have enlightened me. I'll keep this thread up for those who wish to debate about the topic.

The idea is that in general people who go to university will have better paid jobs in the long run. This won't be the case all the time but it would be statistically accurate. Hence the government will make back more money from graduates from taxes in the long run. The question is how much of a subsidy is required for the initial outlay by the government is matched by the total extra tax paid back.

I don't see how childish some students are really makes much difference to the question. In terms of arrogance I think everyone would like something for free and only arrogantly feel an entitlement to it because their predecessors got it, which set a precedent for it.