Poorer students will now get 2 free years uni. another attack on middle income family

Hardly. If we're getting technical, in dictionary terms, yes it is.

Labour wanted to preserve the NHS. They screwed it up.
The ConDems want to preserve education. They are screwing it up, as we speak!

Notice the pattern there?

I just thought I'd help someone who is so moronically stupid that they are not able see a student debt as a debt.

Middle class =/= the average income.
If you look in history middle class meant above the average wealth and sociel standing of the average person. Because there were SO many working class people due to the certain proffessions and such we had. This is why the class system is a bit too old to relate to modern times. Plus we have lower and upper middle class, so we have to distinguish, as they are very different too

Good, that's cleared up then.

A debt is a debt.

You can say the type of debt is less bad than another, but it's still debt.

You explain the student repayment scheme to a real hard working person with a debt of godknowswhat and they will laugh in your face and tell you how easy it will be to pay off.

Irrelevant.

there are several ways of solving the tuition fee crisis namely leaving it the way it is, its hard enough for people to go to university at the moment without messing things all around with it. I think on the news it said that the free tuition was optional so im assuming the unis might not actually go for it? well the government have changed their minds so many times who knows what the hell the student system will end up like! Personally I think that they are doing it at the wrong time, put up the tuition fees when the country is prospering and the job market is good so people know they have a good chance of getting into a better job to pay back the debts. Doing it now when the job market isnt great will leave people feeling that theyve wasted their time and money going to university when they cannot make the 21000 proposed repayments. With that kind of debt how the hell is anyone supposed to get mortgages etc...in the future And that applies to lower and middles classes, you know somepeople who do have rich parents, but dont always have the luxury of their parents spoon feeding them. It just depends on how much money your parents can cough up to help you if you go to uni which determines how much financial mess you are left in. There are few people who will not be affected by the propsed changes so dont feel that it is solely an attack on the middle classes.

What?
You have some very.. very weird view points on this

It isnt hard for people to go to university.. hence why there are so many people going. The only reason people cant at the moment is because of grades and a select few who either fall above the category for loans and also have no financial help from home or get a small amount of the loans etc and cant find any more money elsewhere.

Put up tuition fees when the country is doing good.. but keep it low when the countrys economy is doing bad? Do you not understand economics AT ALL? When the economy is bad we need to make cuts and get more money from certain sectors, in this case university fees.

You pay 9% of your income OVER 21 thousand a year.. do you realise how small that is? Jesus you act like students have to pay it back in 5 years or something. Say your on a 22k a year graduate entry job, that means you are paying 90 quid back a year.
Anyone who actually knows soemthing about it and doesnt just have a rant because "oh noes i has to pay more moneys i cant afford it!!1!" realise the increase in fee's wont affect people as much as they think, just do some research on the fee's.

That is your opinion. However, I do not believe it should be in the hands of the individual to choose. Individuals are greedy, stupid, and incapable of thinking long term (not that you necessarily are ) If we removed all welfare (I mean ALL) the country's less well off would not be helped at all as much as they are now. So, because individuals are not able to help, it must be forced upon them. There is also the argument that anything you earn technically does not belong to you. I know, how very socialist, but actually think about it. Money (the concept and physical money) was created by the state. Without universal (or at least, state-wide) and standardised currency any work done would be traded for goods.

It seems you have misunderstood me. I was not saying that disabled people cannot work. You said "Disabled people don't choose to be disabled, but poor people have a sort of choice." I rebutted by saying, if we think that poor people have a sort of choice because they have done things to help themselves into position, then we have to say that some disabled people have chosen to be disabled. Indirectly of course, but still, the idea stands.(I do not believe this to be the case, but this is your logic I'm trying to work out analogies for.)

I don't even know what this even is. So, I'll make my point clearer.

You spoke earlier of people "being too short sighted to see that their degree would be worth it." Well, I now accuse you of the same.

Let's assume that a girl who is very gifted but from a poor family is put off higher education by the sheer numbers presented to her of the debt she will accumulate. She decides not to go to university and study Economics, but instead, to become a secretary, and lives a modest life. The country is worse off, as if she were to become an economist, she would have been able to advise the government/businesses through harsh economic times.

Now, let's assume that this same gifted girl, is helped. She has the first two years of her university paid for, she graduates with a degree in Economics, and does what she could not previously. She pays into the system via taxes far far more than she had extricated, and crucially, the country gains a brilliant mind.

Can you not see that the second scenario is better for everyone? You may not agree with the principle, but surely you agree with the result? Remember, without this help the gifted girl WOULD NOT HAVE done this. To disagree with this really is tantamount to wishing to keep wealth in the same hands, and to prevent social mobility, regardless of abilty.

Sure. You say that people have the same opportunities. Evidently, they do not, and apparently, if you were in a position of power, you would ensure any opportunities for the poorer to better themselves would be removed for fear of "making others lose out."

So, the poor boy who goes to a crap comprehensive does not manage to go to university, he gets a job as a bus driver, and earns £15,000 a year. The boy who goes to a private school, and then onto university ends up with a £100,000 a year job. To say that he has created his own wealth is insane.

In other words, the field was not level at the start (when they went to school) so then to view things as though it were from the beginning (by righting the field and saying the score is the same) makes no sense.

I agree there should be SOME taxation, and there should be some welfare, I'm not saying completely erradicate it. But there should only be basic welfare. It is not necessary to pay for two years at uni for others.

Interesting point about money, but I believe that although the state created it, it is there to be earned. Hence why jobs have different salaries and wages.

Sorry, I should have explained that better. I mean that for every gifted poor child, there is a gifted rich child. So we wouldn't lose out if the poor didn't go to uni, as there are gifted people who can afford it. I'm not saying the poor shouldn't attent uni, I'm just saying that that particular argument doesn't hold.

I can see the benefit, but as I said, there are other students who are good at economics who would either be able to afford it, or not put off by the debt.

But he has an education. If he chooses to waste it, that's his problem. Yes, comprehensives may not be as good as some top nprivate schools, but he has a chance to get GCSEs, then A Levels, and then attent uni. No one has completely equal opportunities in life. People are born with different talents and abilities. So technically, no one has a completely level playing field. But they all have some sort of education that they can get to uni with.

I think it's unfair to say he didn't create his own wealth. He studied hard, got the grades, and worked hard for it.

My parents pay my fees and they don't earn that much. My dad earns £50k a year, which is a good wage but it doesn't go that far (it's not like surgeons on £100k p.a.) and my mum only works part-time. It's about priorities - your parents chose a bigger house (if they're still paying off their mortgage then they bought above their means) over giving you the best head-start in life they could afford.