Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Explain what is illogical about encouraging people to be self sufficient and to not be victims of legalised theft in the form of high taxation?
    Corrected. Theft being a small amount does not stop it being theft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    did you just imply tax is theft
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beecher)
    did you just imply tax is theft
    Yes, indeed it is.

    Taxation — the exaction of money or goods from people without their consent. That is theft, but yet it is legal because it is conducted by government. Just because a proportion of people vote for an agent (in this case government) to do the thieving, it does not make it right, or stop it being theft.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Of course they are, they're just better than those strange lowly grubby fellows, Oh what are they called? Oh yes - Peasants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Yes, indeed it is.

    Taxation — the exaction of money or goods from people without their consent. That is theft, but yet it is legal because it is conducted by government. Just because a proportion of people vote for an agent (in this case government) to do the thieving, it does not make it right, or stop it being theft.
    Does that mean that in the US (obviously it could happen here) you could bring it up in the Supreme Court that tax is unconstitutional as it goes against one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights (can't remember which one now..)? lol. Surely someone would have thought of this before..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Summergirl.x)
    Does that mean that in the US (obviously it could happen here) you could bring it up in the Supreme Court that tax is unconstitutional as it goes against one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights (can't remember which one now..)? lol. Surely someone would have thought of this before..
    Many political philosophers have thought of tax as theft before, I don't claim credit for spotting it.

    However, it is not unconstitutional in the US - it is merely constitutionalised theft, ever since the sixteenth amendment, so that section 8, clause 1 reads:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
    This specifically does allow for taxes under the constitution, but it doesn't stop it being theft, or wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Summergirl.x)
    You can't "destroy" Conservatism any more than you can "destory" Communism or even religion. Violence isn't going to change that. In fact using violence just makes you look like a tw*t. I was going to maybe support the protests until I saw the violence. It's off putting.
    Should I assume you consider British military service personnel to be highly paid, highly skilled, patriotic Tory loving "*****"?

    (Original post by Summergirl.x)
    What damage? In the 1990s when they introduced the higher education tuition fees statistics show that more students went to university. Also, if you argue those coming from a background that are not poor enough to recieve any grants, but not wealthy enough for your parents to help you, that they are going to be "damaged" please look again. You don't pay anything until you are earning £21,000 (or whatever the sum was) so there is no difference between a graduate on £21,000 paying back fees whose parents earn £150,000 to a graduate on the same income but whose parents earn £40,000 or whatever the sum is just above the eligibility level.
    Perhaps you don't understand; in order to be a loan, donated money must be a temporary provision (usually at interest). This means the person receiving the loan is placed in debt. Whether or not they repay the money immediately is irrelevant.

    Under your scheme a person with poor parents and earning the paltry sum of £21,000 a year will be bound to start paying back this loan, in installments, with interest. Factoring in outgoings, this person will remain or become indigent.

    A person with rich parents (who can afford to repay the loan in full - immediately) will just laugh.

    Minority? The Conservative party are the plural majority party..
    The one thing I pity the most about you people is - on account of your general illogical biases - your inability to discern fact from fiction. Out of say 80 million British residents, how many are Conservative Party Members?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Under your scheme a person with poor parents and earning the paltry sum of £21,000 a year will be bound to start paying back this loan, in installments, with interest. Factoring in outgoings, this person will remain or become indigent.
    Really? Quote the opposite, interest will not apply at £21,000 and the monthly repayments will be £0. As soon as you earn a pound more your total debt will be subject to interest (graduated up to 3% when you're earning £41K+) and your repayments will be 9p in the pound earned over £21,000.

    On lifetime earnings, under the new scheme, the poorest pay less, the richest pay more. What's not progressive about that?

    I mean, really, why should someone earning £21K become indigent when they are paying back £45 LESS than under the current proposals every month, and thus have an extra £540 each year compared with students who are currently in university.

    If anything, students should be protesting that they cannot move onto the new scheme and it's only available to those matriculating after 2012. Certainly I'd love to move onto it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary2010)
    No - the poorest students ... don't pay a penny later unless they earn over £21,000.

    £21,000 a year is apprenticeship pay.

    Logic dictates that only a fraction of all students will land jobs with reasonable levels of pay (by this I mean salaries commensurate with comfortable standards of living).

    The majority of students who actually find work will be modestly paid.

    This is what I mean when I say "in other words poor students remain poor."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Really? Quote the opposite, interest will not apply at £21,000 and the monthly repayments will be £0. As soon as you earn a pound more your total debt will be subject to interest (graduated up to 3% when you're earning £41K+) and your repayments will be 9p in the pound earned over £21,000.
    So a poor person with a child's salary of £21,001 p.a. over their life time gets to pay £18,900 for taking a £9,000 loan!

    Truly "progressive!"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Really? Quote the opposite, interest will not apply at £21,000 and the monthly repayments will be £0. As soon as you earn a pound more your total debt will be subject to interest (graduated up to 3% when you're earning £41K+) and your repayments will be 9p in the pound earned over £21,000.

    On lifetime earnings, under the new scheme, the poorest pay less, the richest pay more. What's not progressive about that?

    I mean, really, why should someone earning £21K become indigent when they are paying back £45 LESS than under the current proposals every month, and thus have an extra £540 each year compared with students who are currently in university.

    If anything, students should be protesting that they cannot move onto the new scheme and it's only available to those matriculating after 2012. Certainly I'd love to move onto it.

    Two things:

    I'm sure you;re aware of all the Graducate medical students who after 2012 will have to pay anywhere between £9,000 for a 4 year course and £36,000 for a 5 year course, with no option of loans (and that's all contingent on the NHS keeping up the levels of funding for training), which given that every single staff member is being given a compulsory pay freeze wage reduction against inflation I doubt they'll be able to.

    2. Surely taxes would only be theft if the tax payer did not receive or have the ability to recieve the goods or services it was earmarked for at the end of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello dave)
    This just highlights how broken the class system is in this country.
    Let me guess, all Tories are "toffs" and are rich and/or went to Oxbridge. So if you happen to agree that making cuts is actually in this countries interest, then you must be a toff too?

    You do realise that 1 in 5 Labour MP's went to Oxbridge, including Ed Milliband - and rightly so why should we have the brightest people running our country, and Labour is funded almost entirely by Unions and a few extremely wealthy individuals? And millions support the cuts.. just because no one at your Uni does, doesn't mean nobody does.
    Oxbridge doesn't = the brightest people, it = the bourgeois.

    Anyone who supports the cuts, frankly, has no soul.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sadly the tories are obsessed with the economy, and if something doesn't make profit, it obviously can't be purposeful to society in their view.

    So in essence the tories allow many to dehumanise us, all in the name of having a healthy GDP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    £21,000 a year is apprenticeship pay.

    Logic dictates that only a fraction of all students will land jobs with reasonable levels of pay (by this I mean salaries commensurate with comfortable standards of living).

    The majority of students who actually find work will be modestly paid.

    This is what I mean when I say "in other words poor students remain poor."
    What you say here makes no sense - a salary of 21K is sufficient for you to be able to affrod the minute repayment every month on your loan. By the time you are earning 21K (many students will get jobs paying better, others may have to wait a couple of years) you will have far bigger monthly expenses....like rent, council tax, petrol / travel expenses, even food will be costing you more each month than your student loan!

    Stop making out it is going to cripple grads....it wont!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    Oxbridge doesn't = the brightest people, it = the bourgeois.

    Anyone who supports the cuts, frankly, has no soul.
    Frankly, anyone who doesnt supprt the cuts has no idea about what is going on in the real world and doesnt deserve to go to uni...which is a privilage and a choice, not a right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by profoflife)
    Frankly, anyone who doesnt supprt the cuts has no idea about what is going on in the real world and doesnt deserve to go to uni...which is a privilage and a choice, not a right.
    So you're saying every cut is 100% right, 100% fair and there's no two ways about it?

    I think you're the one with a slightly deluded look on what's going on in the 'real world' to be honest, as well as the architects of these cuts who've never needed to worry about a bill in their lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i_am_disco)
    So you're saying every cut is 100% right, 100% fair and there's no two ways about it?

    I think you're the one with a slightly deluded look on what's going on in the 'real world' to be honest, as well as the architects of these cuts who've never needed to worry about a bill in their lives.
    As harsh at it may seem...yes!

    I was a student, i am now a tax payer and i have paid off my loan and i live in the real world.

    Your opinions are based on peer pressure, fantastical assumptions and very little fact. It is very ignorant of you to think that people in government have never struggled for cash. 99% of students, regardless of how wealthy their families might be, are always hard up - THIS IS LIFE!

    Another point being this has very little to do with Tory / lib dem / labour or anything else. These decisions are for the benefit of the country as a whole and would have been made by any party in government. Any that may have chosen not to make these decisions would have been doing it for political reasons.

    It is a hard decision to make as no one really wants it, but it is a necessary evil under the circumstances.

    But you need to go through this phase to learn the value of money. Maybe it will make you less likely to pi** it all up the wall when you are at uni...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by profoflife)
    As harsh at it may seem...yes!

    I was a student, i am now a tax payer and i have paid off my loan and i live in the real world.

    Your opinions are based on peer pressure, fantastical assumptions and very little fact. It is very ignorant of you to think that people in government have never struggled for cash. 99% of students, regardless of how wealthy their families might be, are always hard up - THIS IS LIFE!

    Another point being this has very little to do with Tory / lib dem / labour or anything else. These decisions are for the benefit of the country as a whole and would have been made by any party in government. Any that may have chosen not to make these decisions would have been doing it for political reasons.

    It is a hard decision to make as no one really wants it, but it is a necessary evil under the circumstances.

    But you need to go through this phase to learn the value of money. Maybe it will make you less likely to pi** it all up the wall when you are at uni...
    Admittedly cutting the deficit is something that would inevitably have to be done, but the depth, and speed of these cuts are clearly too much, with many of them inhumane in my view. How is this 'For the good of society' if prices begin to soar, wages stay the same (many in the public sector frozen for several years now), benefits cut when people are inevitably made unemployed as a result of these moves, and services being cut in Local councils left right and centre. This is not even to mention the cuts to policing in the country - again, how does this benefit society?

    Don't patronise because you're part of the working world now, you say I'm working on assumption and peer pressure, however you haven't particularly sighted any sources of your knowledge so as far as I know the same goes for you.

    Anyway, overarching point = cuts don't help society when they reduce our quality of life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i_am_disco)
    Admittedly cutting the deficit is something that would inevitably have to be done, but the depth, and speed of these cuts are clearly too much, with many of them inhumane in my view. How is this 'For the good of society' if prices begin to soar, wages stay the same (many in the public sector frozen for several years now), benefits cut when people are inevitably made unemployed as a result of these moves, and services being cut in Local councils left right and centre. This is not even to mention the cuts to policing in the country - again, how does this benefit society?

    Don't patronise because you're part of the working world now, you say I'm working on assumption and peer pressure, however you haven't particularly sighted any sources of your knowledge so as far as I know the same goes for you.

    Anyway, overarching point = cuts don't help society when they reduce our quality of life.
    My sources are my experience, having actually been through the whole process as well as knowing undergrads now and recent grads, and my superior wsidom having studied and worked in numerous countries around the world, not just the UK.

    I agree that cuts will strain the country in some way, inevitably, but if it isnt done now, things will just get worse...more unemployment, larger class sizes, fewer hospital beds, fewer doctors, less businesses based in the UK particularly manufacturing and high-tech industries etc etc.

    It may seem harsh now, but the alternatives are not a solution. This is the best way forward when you look at all the options and resultant medium and long term effects of them all. You're just going to have to suck it up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What some people do not seem to understand is that the 21K threshold for paying will be in operation in 2016 when the first "cohort" of students start repaying their loans under the new loan system. This 21K will not be uprated for inflation between now and 2016 so if inflation is about 4% a year for five years the real terms threshold for repaying the loan will be roughly what it is now.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.