ABOLISH TUITION FEES? vote Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Party leader!

There are nobel winning economists who have been arguing that austerity, tax avoidance, loopholes and so on is destroying growth. The IMF and OCED has come out several times arguing that economic inequality has robbed Western countries hundreds of billions in lost of growth.

Stop thinking like a tribal politco and follow the evidence.

Those same Nobel winning economists who said we'd have a triple dip recession.

Stop putting so much faith in Nobel laureates. They work in theory there's multiple schools of economic theory with each one having a Nobel
Laureate.they can't all be right.

The IMF were the ones who advocated austerity.

Reply 61

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Erzan

Polls show Jeremy is more electable by all parties.

That says nothing of motive, after all, correct me if I'm wrong, but was there not a campaign to get Tories to sign up to get Corbyn in to keep Labour out? This is completely the wrong question, the question should be about who is most likely to make them vote Labour, and depending on how you internpret Would not Vote, could say that Labour are the only who would like ANY of the candidates.

Reply 62

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Funkinwolf

No, it's rebirth.

Looks more like a painful death throw.

Reply 63

ibzombie96

17

Original post by Erzan

Polls show Jeremy is more electable by all parties.

Yes, that poll's a few days old. I was very surprised by the result, and if that's the case, then Corbyn should be leader. But I have a couple of problems. The first is that the question refers to a Labour leadership election and not a general election. For example, if I were one of people asked (I am a Conservative), I would have voted Corbyn; I genuinely wonder why 12% of people who identify as Tory would genuinely vote for Corbyn, don't you? Secondly, I think we should note the weighting of news stories on Corbyn compared to the others. I reckon at least 80% of news pieces have been Corbyn related in some way and I think that's probably had a huge effect on the number of people who would be willing to vote for him. I wonder how the numbers would turn out if Burnham/Cooper were elected leader vs if Corbyn were elected leader. With Corbyn's appeal as an unpolished politician no doubt wearing out and with some more media air getting to Cooper/Burnham, I have a feeling it would be a great deal closer than it is currently.

Reply 64

The two eds

4

I can't wait for Jeremy to be elected, will be one of the greatest spectacles of UK politics

Reply 65

Erzan

13

Original post by Reaver Daniels

Lol, the majority of university funding comes from fees, with a minuscule amount coming from university research being sold and even less from donations. I'd rather pay and have a good university experience rather than have it free and have a bad one. Oh, and don't go down the road of blabbering on about university subsidies because we can't afford it. So go ahead and vote for Jeremy, but if you think that no university fees is great, then examine things before deciding.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What utter nonsense, seriously you are hilarious. It is affordable without even having to tax British income. Reduction on military spending and HS2 for example. Or you can return inheritance and Corporation tax back to pre-2015 rates. We can afford it but we choose to spend it on other fancier things. Stop using cliché ridden phrases and start being honest, you rather give the military billions rather than Universities. You rather give rich people more money rather than Universities. We disagree but at least be damn honest with your budgeting prioritises for god sakes. :angry:

Original post by ibzombie96

Yes, that poll's a few days old. I was very surprised by the result, and if that's the case, then Corbyn should be leader. But I have a couple of problems. The first is that the question refers to a Labour leadership election and not a general election. For example, if I were one of people asked (I am a Conservative), I would have voted Corbyn; I genuinely wonder why 12% of people who identify as Tory would genuinely vote for Corbyn, don't you? Secondly, I think we should note the weighting of news stories on Corbyn compared to the others. I reckon at least 80% of news pieces have been Corbyn related in some way and I think that's probably had a huge effect on the number of people who would be willing to vote for him. I wonder how the numbers would turn out if Burnham/Cooper were elected leader vs if Corbyn were elected leader. With Corbyn's appeal as an unpolished politician no doubt wearing out and with some more media air getting to Cooper/Burnham, I have a feeling it would be a great deal closer than it is currently.

Why are you trolling? you would obviously vote Liz Kendall.

Reply 66

ibzombie96

17

Original post by Erzan

Why are you trolling? you would obviously vote Liz Kendall.

I would have loved a more intelligent reply, but whatever.

I'm not a member of the Labour Party or an affiliated supporter, so I can't vote. But if I could, I wouldn't vote Kendall, no. I think Burnham probably has the image and the skill to do the best by May 2020.

Reply 67

Ooompalumpa

1

So, what happens to those of us who've already had to take loans for tuition fees?

Reply 68

driftawaay

3

Original post by Ooompalumpa

So, what happens to those of us who've already had to take loans for tuition fees?

I want to know this as well but this is never mentioned whenever abolition of tuition fees is discussed. It would be really strange if tuition fees were significantly lowered/abloished in a few years and some of us who applied to uni the last few years were stuck with our tuition fees...

Reply 69

L i b

19

Original post by Reformed2010

Tuition fees abolished.

Yey, people who didn't get the benefit of a university education paying for those who did.

In any case, is this actual abolition, or a fudge like in Scotland where you get one undergraduate degree and have to pay for everything subsequent to that? More and more people are going on to do a Masters degree or other further study now and for many careers it is almost essential.

A proper living wage. (£10 per hour)

So 'increase the living wage by £1 an hour'. Hardly exciting stuff.

Tax avoidance and evasion stopped.

You can't stop tax evasion any more than you can stop assault or murder, and tax avoidance by definition is legal and allowed. Reducing tax avoidance is simply calling for increases in taxation, and there comes a point where trying to prosecute tax evasion ends up costing more than it brings in.

Votes at 16.

No.

House of Lords abolished

I'm happy to look at ways for the Lords to be reformed to be a more effective revising chamber, but abolishing it is ridiculous. An second chamber is an extremely useful thing to have.

A million high skill apprenticeships.

How many people want apprenticeships? How much will this cost? Who'll take them on? Is this apprenticeship starts each year?

The problem is that every one of those pledges sounds distinctly half-baked.

Reply 70

wilkinson001

Original post by driftawaay

I want to know this as well but this is never mentioned whenever abolition of tuition fees is discussed. It would be really strange if tuition fees were significantly lowered/abloished in a few years and some of us who applied to uni the last few years were stuck with our tuition fees...

I imagine, if it were to happen, it would happen like the rise in tuition fees, people from a certain date wouldn't have to pay. everyone who already has a loan has signed a legally binding contract with the student loans company and unless Corbyn wanted to take on all the debt out there on top of paying for any future uni students then he could. He wouldn't be able to afford it though.

Reply 71

L i b

19

Original post by wilkinson001

I imagine, if it were to happen, it would happen like the rise in tuition fees, people from a certain date wouldn't have to pay. everyone who already has a loan has signed a legally binding contract with the student loans company and unless Corbyn wanted to take on all the debt out there on top of paying for any future uni students then he could. He wouldn't be able to afford it though.

He wouldn't be able to afford any of his pledges, but he still makes them...

Reply 72

wilkinson001

Original post by L i b

He wouldn't be able to afford any of his pledges, but he still makes them...

Exactly, and yet people will blindly follow him because he "sticks up for the little guy"....

Reply 73

Funkinwolf

4

Original post by L i b

He wouldn't be able to afford any of his pledges, but he still makes them...

Tuition fees are affordable, why do right wing people like yourself keep telling us we must give billions of tax breaks to the rich in lowering corporation and increasing the inheritance tax. Then you choose to spend extra billions on increasing the military budget which is not even counting the planned billions on the replacement of trident. Well no ****ing **** sherlock that is because you're prioritising the military and big business over education. The 6th richest country can afford it, we just have MPs elected by people like you who choose to divert resources to nuclear weapons, the wealthy and tax dodging corporations.

Reply 74

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by Funkinwolf

Tuition fees are affordable, why do right wing people like yourself keep telling us we must give billions of tax breaks to the rich in lowering corporation and increasing the inheritance tax. Then you choose to spend extra billions on increasing the military budget which is not even counting the planned billions on the replacement of trident. Well no ****ing **** sherlock that is because you're prioritising the military and big business over education. The 6th richest country can afford it, we just have MPs elected by people like you who choose to divert resources to nuclear weapons, the wealthy and tax dodging corporations.

Putting aside that you sound like a walking, talking cliché of the student with the Che Guevara poster on their wall talking about the evil corporations exploiting the proletariat and blah blah..............what's wrong with trident? How is it a waste of money?

I know your man Corbyn bums Islamist murderers and terrorists and others who'd love nothing more to kill us but what do you suppose would deter a genocidal leader should they obtain nuclear weapons?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 75

DJKL

17

Original post by Funkinwolf

Tuition fees are affordable, why do right wing people like yourself keep telling us we must give billions of tax breaks to the rich in lowering corporation and increasing the inheritance tax. Then you choose to spend extra billions on increasing the military budget which is not even counting the planned billions on the replacement of trident. Well no ****ing **** sherlock that is because you're prioritising the military and big business over education. The 6th richest country can afford it, we just have MPs elected by people like you who choose to divert resources to nuclear weapons, the wealthy and tax dodging corporations.

Not sure how lowering corporation tax is de facto a tax break to the rich, companies pay it not individuals? As a fair few people depend on companies for their income via salaries and a fair bit of their retirement spending by those companies making contributions for their benefit, seems to me that they do a fair bit of social good. And then there is the tax they manage (unpaid) for us, vat, PAYE,NI etc.

And the funds they retain post tax, what happens to them? They are either invested within to hopefully grow earnings and therefore increase taxes paid in future years or paid out as dividends to pension schemes, individuals, an ISA etc which help, eventually , stimulate economic demand.

At the end of the day prosperity comes from economic activity being spent, either by individuals, companies or government, and when evaluating which of these groups is most efficient with their spending I would put individuals first (vested interest, it is their money), firms (their employer's money, but have a vested interest in getting value for money for them (bonus/own shares etc)) and last government, not renowned for making every penny spent count, why should they be, are their employees rewarded for efficient use of resources?

So for the good of the country overall letting individuals and firms control more expenditure tends, in the long run, to give the best outcome, because they care more about how it is spent.

Reply 76

L i b

19

Original post by Funkinwolf

Tuition fees are affordable, why do right wing people like yourself keep telling us we must give billions of tax breaks to the rich in lowering corporation and increasing the inheritance tax.

Because the aim of reducing corporation tax is to grow the economy, providing more jobs, leading to fewer benefits outgoings and, in the end, more revenue for the Treasury.

Inheritance tax is being reduced not for the rich, but for the middle - at a pretty low annual cost.

I remind you that abolishing tuition fees is essentially a tax-break for the well-off. Repayments only kick in over a reasonable income threshold, the people who went to university are disproportionately middle-class and the ones who would benefit most in the end would be those with the wealthiest parents.

I'd rather abolish inheritance tax for people with reasonably expensive family homes that they want to pass on which they've earned, already paid tax on several times over (income tax, stamp duty) and pay rates on regularly than give free tuition to millionaires, including anyone who chooses to come here from any corner of the EU.

Then you choose to spend extra billions on increasing the military budget which is not even counting the planned billions on the replacement of trident.

Er, yes it is. Believe it or not, the cost of Trident is subsumed within the defence budget, of which it consists of about 5 or 6%. Why you think it is not included in defence spending is quite simply beyond me.

We're also committed to the 2% of GDP expenditure on defence as part of our international obligations to NATO. Which is, of course, extremely important.

Well no ****ing **** sherlock that is because you're prioritising the military and big business over education.

Nope, education is being prioritised. Tuition fees ensure that our universities are well-funded and accessible.

Reply 77

Funkinwolf

4

Original post by L i b

Because the aim of reducing corporation tax is to grow the economy, providing more jobs, leading to fewer benefits outgoings and, in the end, more revenue for the Treasury.

It diverts funds away from investing in education, health and housing. Trickle down economics has been discredit time after time. The IMF and OCED have both investigated the impact of what happens when you cut taxes for the rich. your economy loses long term growth.

Original post by L i b

Inheritance tax is being reduced not for the rich, but for the middle - at a pretty low annual cost.

The average Briton does not own a £1 million home.

Original post by L i b

I remind you that abolishing tuition fees is essentially a tax-break for the well-off. Repayments only kick in over a reasonable income threshold, the people who went to university are disproportionately middle-class and the ones who would benefit most in the end would be those with the wealthiest parents.

I differ from you when I am honest about some of my opinions, be it ideological or not. Such as the access to Education should be free from your family circumstances. We have a system in place to redistribute wealth to those who need it more from those that benefited from a wealthy background, it is called tax.

Original post by L i b

Er, yes it is. Believe it or not, the cost of Trident is subsumed within the defence budget, of which it consists of about 5 or 6%. Why you think it is not included in defence spending is quite simply beyond me.

I never said it was not costed I simply said we should be diverting the planned spending to other areas.

Original post by L i b

We're also committed to the 2% of GDP expenditure on defence as part of our international obligations to NATO. Which is, of course, extremely important.

So? NATO can ask and we can say no, it is not a supranational organisation capable of overriding our decision. We are committed to climate change and poverty targets but I don't read, listen or see many (if at all) right wing people crying when they are routinely missed.

Original post by L i b

Nope, education is being prioritised. Tuition fees ensure that our universities are well-funded and accessible.

Thank you for your opinion. But considering you believe giving more money to people with parents who have £1 million homes is a priority, I will ignore it.

Reply 78

username1865079

14

http://bbc.in/1MWGNJE

:cool:

Reply 79

Gigabit

14

Original post by Funkinwolf

Tuition fees are affordable, why do right wing people like yourself keep telling us we must give billions of tax breaks to the rich in lowering corporation and increasing the inheritance tax. Then you choose to spend extra billions on increasing the military budget which is not even counting the planned billions on the replacement of trident. Well no ****ing **** sherlock that is because you're prioritising the military and big business over education. The 6th richest country can afford it, we just have MPs elected by people like you who choose to divert resources to nuclear weapons, the wealthy and tax dodging corporations.

Because without the banks there would be no universities for you to go to in the first place...

The banks are essential to our economy, you can't just let them fail and let all the money just vaporise. How does that make sense?

ABOLISH TUITION FEES? vote Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Party leader!

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you