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

Increasing students fees may cost the country more money than it saves! Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dave Davidson)
    So what there idelogy is the greater. Its proven the world over.


    Im glad less poor people will be there maybe universty will be for those with class!
    I have seen you posting on a number of threads, and the standard of your writing is appalling. Seriously, are you drunk or something?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    I have seen you posting on a number of threads, and the standard of your writing is appalling. Seriously, are you drunk or something?
    Typing surely? Go back to poland
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by goose1990)
    I do struggle to see how it could cost more though, unless the unis are getting more money out of it which would be good.
    OK, look at it on an individual basis and then apply it to the whole:

    You borrow £50,000 at a preferential rate of interest, repaying it only when you have an income that allows for repayment.

    That repayment is adjusted to take account of increases in cost of living and salary...and if you haven't repaid it at the end of the agreed term, you don't have to try to repay it anymore.

    Now...the money that has been lent actually comes from the taxpayers...via the Treasury. That is why increased fees might cost the country more than keeping the fees as they are.

    Have a look at HEPI's reasoning on the OP. It's quite straight forward.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    ............and a complete abandonment of political ideology from the Liberal Dems I note.

    Though in fairness, it was Labour that introduced fees, and presided over the first increase. And, were Labour in office today, they'd be doing the same thing so it's really a bit disingenius to wrap this up as Tory ideology.
    Labour deny that they would have introduced a three-fold increase in fees from one year to another.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Not sure if this is the same one but tbh Most of the things like this are made on such a stupid amount of assumptions, you end up with one economist saying the opposite to another. The only thing you can do is wait a few years to see the effects of the measures.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Not sure if this is the same one but tbh Most of the things like this are made on such a stupid amount of assumptions, you end up with one economist saying the opposite to another. The only thing you can do is wait a few years to see the effects of the measures.
    That's the first post of yours that I agree with, Aj!

    As you say, time will tell...and hopefully we'll get a good idea of the wider ramifications of such rushed and ill-thought out policy well before the next election is due.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Labour deny that they would have introduced a three-fold increase in fees from one year to another.
    LOL! Well, they have a wonderful position from which to confirm or deny whatever they want aren't they? That's surely the beauty of being in opposition.

    Joking aside though, NOBODY needs to listen to what Labour say they would or would not do when it comes to managing the economy, fiscal policy, balancing budgets and such like. They've already shown the damage they can do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If you earn less than 28k, you'll pay less. If you earn more than 28k, you'll pay more. This is as an average over the course of your life. The government is going on the assumption that most graduates will earn more than £28k a year average over the course of their lives. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to think this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dave Davidson)
    So what? there Their ideology is the greater (than what?). It's been proven the world over. (Not really...)


    I'm glad less fewer poor people will be there; maybe now, university will be for those with class!

    Like your good self, obviously...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    LOL! Well, they have a wonderful position from which to confirm or deny whatever they want aren't they? That's surely the beauty of being in opposition.
    Tbh Howie, I don't think they would have had the gall to do it, apart from anything else.

    You see, presenting an ideological policy as a joint effort with a party that was ideologically opposed to it before tasting the temptation of power, enables the former to persuade the electorate that the latter are the villains of the piece.

    Unfortunately for the Tories, some of the electorate aren't that guillible and apportion blame equally to both.

    Labour was never in this position to be able to offload responsibility onto their governmental partners. They would have had to take all the blame that the Tories have opportunistically offloaded onto the feckless LibDems.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    LOL! Well, they have a wonderful position from which to confirm or deny whatever they want aren't they? That's surely the beauty of being in opposition.

    Joking aside though, NOBODY needs to listen to what Labour say they would or would not do when it comes to managing the economy, fiscal policy, balancing budgets and such like. They've already shown the damage they can do.

    Yeah, like bringing us out of recession whilst still maintaining a high-level of public spending and therefore services, and living up to their election pledges/manifesto. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If this is true, the government should stop increasing the repayment threshold. Simple.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Hilux)
    If this is true, the government should stop increasing the repayment threshold. Simple.
    They brought that concession in as a sweetener to parliamentarians to ensure it got through both Houses. Otherwise, we might not even be talking fees of up to £9,000.

    You see, nothing is ever as simple as first glance implies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Yeah, like bringing us out of recession whilst still maintaining a high-level of public spending and therefore services, and living up to their election pledges/manifesto. :rolleyes:
    No need to roll your eyes at me sonny boy.

    Yes, they certainly did maintain a high level of public spending. This probably has something to do with the 900billion pound debt that the Tories are now trying to reduce.

    Labour didn't bring the UK out or recession any more than Democrats brought the US out of recession. Recessions run their course. The recession was global and cyclical - the UK came out in spite of, rather than because of, anything that Labour did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The policy does not make economic sense any way. You are effectively penalising those who do a degree that is actually worth doing. They keep saying 'and if you're a carer you won't ever have to pay it back because you won't top the threshold', well so what? What are they doing making people going into the caring profession pay anything for their degrees anyway? Like anyone with any common sense is going to pay over £30k to do a job like that... it already doesn't make any economic sense to become a carer and with an ageing population we need more of them.

    It seems pretty obvious from an economic standpoint that if you combine all the future graduates in this country, and what they will owe compared to what they will be paying back, they will more than likely only be paying off slightly above the rate of interest. The few people who actually earn enough to pay off their loans and don't dodge it, will in no way counteract those who never even come close. I thought this was about sorting the deficit out now, but there won't even feasibly be any repayments on this debt until 2016 at the earliest. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the highly rich's children will qualify for all the state support because they do not declare their income, or because it is now perfectly feasible to rent your son/daughter a small bedsit when they are 16 and claim they live there so they qualify. It also doesn't take into account that a lot of students, although 'illegal', will just run off abroad.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The policy does not make economic sense any way. You are effectively penalising those who do a degree that is actually worth doing. They keep saying 'and if you're a carer you won't ever have to pay it back because you won't top the threshold', well so what? What are they doing making people going into the caring profession pay anything for their degrees anyway? Like anyone with any common sense is going to pay over £30k to do a job like that... it already doesn't make any economic sense to become a carer and with an ageing population we need more of them.

    It seems pretty obvious from an economic standpoint that if you combine all the future graduates in this country, and what they will owe compared to what they will be paying back, they will more than likely only be paying off slightly above the rate of interest. The few people who actually earn enough to pay off their loans and don't dodge it, will in no way counteract those who never even come close. I thought this was about sorting the deficit out now, but there won't even feasibly be any repayments on this debt until 2016 at the earliest. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the highly rich's children will qualify for all the state support because they do not declare their income, or because it is now perfectly feasible to rent your son/daughter a small bedsit when they are 16 and claim they live there so they qualify. It also doesn't take into account that a lot of students, although 'illegal', will just run off abroad.
    You raise some very good points there, Elipsis.

    As I said, rushed and ill-thought out policy...like most of what the coalition proposes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    They brought that concession in as a sweetener to parliamentarians to ensure it got through both Houses. Otherwise, we might not even be talking fees of up to £9,000.

    You see, nothing is ever as simple as first glance implies.
    As I understand it, changing the threshold would not require a new Act of Parliament, though I may be wrong. Even if it did, I still think it would be a good idea to drop the threshold - otherwise they've lost popularity to achieve essentially nothing.

    On the other hand, it rather takes the wind out of the protesters' sails if they're actually going to be paying less overall as a result of the changes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The policy does not make economic sense any way. You are effectively penalising those who do a degree that is actually worth doing.
    Agreed - the fees should simply be the market rate of interest on the market cost of the education. Any subsidy is pretty much impossible to justify: either the degree will pay itself back and more, in which case any subsidy is inherently regressive, or the degree will not pay itself back, in which case they shouldn't do the degree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hilux)
    As I understand it, changing the threshold would not require a new Act of Parliament, though I may be wrong. Even if it did, I still think it would be a good idea to drop the threshold - otherwise they've lost popularity to achieve essentially nothing.

    On the other hand, it rather takes the wind out of the protesters' sails if they're actually going to be paying less overall as a result of the changes.
    Not that I needed any excuses but the government has failed me at every turn. They provided me with a crap education from junior school onwards. The hospitals where I now live are terrible. They overtaxed me while I tried to pay my way through my degree and paid me back at the end of the year when I didn't need the money. They introduced higher fees the year I went to uni. I don't know if you can put an economic price on this, but I now feel it is my responsibility to avoid taxes as much as possible so I can provide my children with the lives they never will. I'm sure i'll get a lot of neg rep for this, but it is going to cost them millions.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.