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

Are conservative party members human? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary2010)
    Because the alternative is burdening taxpayers, many of whom have never had the privilege of a university education. And that's wrong. Students need to start paying off their OWN debts after graduation if they earn over £21,000 - not fleecing taxpayers (many of whom earn far less) to do it for them!
    If this is the consensual logic then why stop here?

    Why not back tax (at the current rate of inflation, plus interest) all of those privileged MPs (and graduates [dating back many decades]) who had their tuition fees payed by tax payers?

    Such a logical move would wipe out the trade deficit within a month.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lemons)
    Many people who'll never be £40k in debt by the time they're 21 agree.

    Surprising, isn't it?
    It's not debt in the same way a mortgage or an actual loan is a debt. Don't be an idiot. What you pay back is directly linked to earning and if you're telling me that on £21k you can't afford £7 pound a week then you need to get real.

    £40k is great value for money for a degree from one of the best uni's in the world. I'd love it to be free, but **** happens.

    Do you have to revive a week old thread?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    If this is the consensual logic then why stop here?

    Why not back tax (at the current rate of inflation, plus interest) all of those privileged MPs (and graduates [dating back many decades]) who had their tuition fees payed by tax payers?
    I agree. They should ALL contribute towards their taxpayer-funded education. But NOT through yet more taxes! Britons pay enough tax as it is, and it's time to slash taxes across the board, together with the bloated welfare state and the proliferation of govt payroll bureaucrats that our tax pounds support. Instead, graduates should pay a graduate contribution, just as students studying from 2012 onwards will be required to pay a non-tax graduate contribution after they graduate, if their earnings exceed £21,000. It would also help to convince future students that all past generations of students are paying their fair share too.

    However, there are several major arguments against introducing graduate contributions from previous generations, which need to be answered. Point no. 4 in particular is a major sticking point:

    1. Taxpayers in past years were much more able to pay for students when only 6% - 9% of young people went to university;

    2. Taxpayers have already paid for students to attend university in past years, and graduates (who are also taxpayers) shouldn't therefore have to pay for it all over again;

    3. Many local authorities have disposed of their records of the names and personal details of students to whom they awarded maintenance grants, and chasing up graduates would be a bureaucratic nightmare - especially at a time when Britain is dedicated to slashing the numbers of public service workers across the board (including civil servants);

    4. Laws in the UK aren't retrospective, and just as someone can't be retrospectively tried & punished for breaking a law that didn't exist at the time, we can't start introducing a precedent to this long-established legal tradition now.

    Those serious objections need to be addressed. But I believe this issue is so important that I think ALL graduates should make the effort pay a graduate contribution, no matter what their age. Point no. 4 above may mean that any graduate contribution from past generations is purely voluntary. But the additional graduate contributions, however organised (as long as bureaucracy is dealt with ruthlessly), should help universities to invest more and to become more independent. And to help safeguard the education of generations of future students, I believe it's worth making that effort now.


    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Such a logical move would wipe out the trade deficit within a month.
    Errr... how would it do THAT, exactly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You simply cannot introduce laws retrospectively. People make decisions based on what the situations are at the time, you cannot then change the situation without allowing them to change their decision, which is of course impossible. It's hugely immoral to argue that we should backtax current politicians.

    Similarly, should we give some of the wealthiest around from the 70s some money back since then the top rate of tax was 83% and now its 40%?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    You simply cannot introduce laws retrospectively. People make decisions based on what the situations are at the time, you cannot then change the situation without allowing them to change their decision, which is of course impossible. It's hugely immoral to argue that we should backtax current politicians.

    Similarly, should we give some of the wealthiest around from the 70s some money back since then the top rate of tax was 83% and now its 40%?
    Powerful arguments. Look forward to Gimme More's proposed solutions...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary2010)
    I agree. They should ALL contribute towards their taxpayer-funded education. But NOT through yet more taxes! Britons pay enough tax as it is, and it's time to slash taxes across the board, together with the bloated welfare state and the proliferation of govt payroll bureaucrats that our tax pounds support. Instead, graduates should pay a graduate contribution, just as students studying from 2012 onwards will be required to pay a non-tax graduate contribution after they graduate, if their earnings exceed £21,000. It would also help to convince future students that all past generations of students are paying their fair share too.

    However, there are several major arguments against introducing graduate contributions from previous generations, which need to be answered. Point no. 4 in particular is a major sticking point:

    1. Taxpayers in past years were much more able to pay for students when only 6% - 9% of young people went to university;

    2. Taxpayers have already paid for students to attend university in past years, and graduates (who are also taxpayers) shouldn't therefore have to pay for it all over again;

    3. Many local authorities have disposed of their records of the names and personal details of students to whom they awarded maintenance grants, and chasing up graduates would be a bureaucratic nightmare - especially at a time when Britain is dedicated to slashing the numbers of public service workers across the board (including civil servants);

    4. Laws in the UK aren't retrospective, and just as someone can't be retrospectively tried & punished for breaking a law that didn't exist at the time, we can't start introducing a precedent to this long-established legal tradition now.

    Those serious objections need to be addressed. But I believe this issue is so important that I think ALL graduates should make the effort pay a graduate contribution, no matter what their age. Point no. 4 above may mean that any graduate contribution from past generations is purely voluntary. But the additional graduate contributions, however organised (as long as bureaucracy is dealt with ruthlessly), should help universities to invest more and to become more independent. And to help safeguard the education of generations of future students, I believe it's worth making that effort now.


    Errr... how would it do THAT, exactly?
    Calculate (adjusted for inflation) the revenues which would be generated were, say, all those alive today who benefited from free tuition, to pay for their education retrospectively.

    Calculate a figure for say a minuscule token number of 100,000 people, who were handed free tuition fees of say £2,500 each. Now adjust the sum to factor in today's level of inflation (seeing as it is only fair to recoup value based upon how far the money would go when it was received). I think you'll find that even this small number of past students (if made to pay up) would generate over £1 billion.

    Surely those most vociferous about having students pay for their education, shouldn't mind paying for the education they received.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    You simply cannot introduce laws retrospectively. People make decisions based on what the situations are at the time, you cannot then change the situation without allowing them to change their decision, which is of course impossible. It's hugely immoral to argue that we should backtax current politicians.

    Similarly, should we give some of the wealthiest around from the 70s some money back since then the top rate of tax was 83% and now its 40%?
    Why not?

    Isn't this about a "fair" distribution of the national burden?

    Give them back that money and then take it to cover their free tuition (adjusted for inflation).

    You're arguing that students should be made to pay for their education in a country with a tradition of free education. If that tradition has become negligible, then we can ignore its virtues and declare those who did not pay for their education nonexempt from contributing to the restitution of a budget deficit (largely accumulated on the basis of unimportant and wastrel fiscal traditions).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostCompetitive)
    I'm surprised that they got 307 seats in the general election a few months back. What were the public thinking?
    Labour isn't working.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello dave)
    Almost a million people protested against the Iraq war, that's a bit more than this level of animosity.

    A few thousand students rioting and you think they suddenly don't represent the population? The population isn't just made up of students, and many people agree with the the reforms.
    Who are these many people? I'd love to meet them.
    Most parents certainly didn't back the reforms due to the fact that their children would be saddled with even more debt.

    Agreed that the Iraq War protest was a whole other level though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing wrong with conservative party members as everybody has their own view

    Its more about the MPs of the parties being a bit scummy and placing spin on everything they get asked.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    no.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Who are these many people? I'd love to meet them.
    Most parents certainly didn't back the reforms due to the fact that their children would be saddled with even more debt.
    You've most certainly pulled that assertion from your arse.
    It's a debt that doesn't affect your credit rating and you don't have to pay off until you earn a comfortable amount. It's also shifting the cost of higher education from the taxpayer to those who actually use it. The fact that their children would have a higher debt overall is a non-issue.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You've most certainly pulled that assertion from your arse.
    It's a debt that doesn't affect your credit rating and you don't have to pay off until you earn a comfortable amount. It's also shifting the cost of higher education from the taxpayer to those who actually use it. The fact that their children would have a higher debt overall is a non-issue.
    Possibly...

    Still a debt nethertheless, a higher level than before the reforms.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Just wait till you see the American republicans. I think that the UK "Right-Wing" pale in comparison.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd ask the same question of all politicians.

    Are politicians actually human? I mean are they real people or are they robots designed never to answer a question with a straight answer.
 
 
 
  • 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.