Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Student Protest, Your thoughts watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Meanwhile you;re the perfect caricature of the polar opposite of what your are describing.
    I'll take that as a compliment.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    I'll take that as a compliment.
    That Tory boy in the back ground

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nce-tory-video
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That Tory boy in the back ground

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nce-tory-video
    I'm neither a Tory, nor a 13-year old who picked up a copy of Das Kapital and misunderstood it (aka an Owen Jones fan), so that video has no similarities.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    But since the rich guy or girl in this situation actually pays the whole amount, wouldn't they still be paying more than the rest who get most of it written off in the end? I only see a small number losing out, that being those who earn shed loads and actually pay off the full amount plus the minimal interest, at which point, well, they're pretty rich, so what's the issue?
    The problem is for your children in about 30 - 40 years time. We have huge swaths of young people paying 9% of their salary to pay off loans that will eventually be written off. That 9% should really be going towards pension payments to make retirement liveable.

    The Tories, in introducing this system will not only cost the country more money in the long term as a result of write offs, but they have effectively mortgaged the future of all those poor soles who will be lumbered with loan repayments until they retire or die. All they have achieved is short term write-downs of university spending.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    I'm neither a Tory, nor a 13-year old who picked up a copy of Das Kapital and misunderstood it (aka an Owen Jones fan), so that video has no similarities.
    He does it again! :eek3:

    Well you seem pretty confident in your own shoving people into boxes thing.

    "I doubt they're riots, they're probably just entitled middle-class KCL and UCL students called Fiona or Tarquin or Arabella who read Politics or PPE and decided to waste their days standing outside in their glamorous outfits and billboards which spout half-cocked 2-bit philosophies, before going back to their homes and moaning on facebook or the Guardian about how the government kettled them, and about how we are living in a dictatorship."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    He does it again! :eek3:
    I can switch to l33t speak if you'd like.

    smh mans trying to call me some tory mudblood when he's probably just more jealous than david cameron is of kermit for being able to stick miss piggy on the regular
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roving Fish)
    Really this protest is a bunch of students who are understandably irritated about paying a lot of money for an education. What they don't get is that under this government, they absolutely will not achieve anything by demonstrating to make higher education free. It'd be against the interest of the government's agenda to cut govt spending. I'm not saying that they don't have the right to demonstrate, they do in a democratic society.

    They're not bringing in any realistic proposals to the table to replace the income lost from not having fees. You can't scream and shout at something that's been in place for a number of years and not say: here's my 10 other proposals and these work. :facepalm:

    What students should be doing at the moment is creating foundations for change within their university. Many students fail to grasp that they're now consumers as they pay the full amount of their course and if it's inadequate then they have every right to complain and petition to improve their course and university.

    The thing is - nobody forced them into Higher Education. They wanted to go forwards into it to make a better life for themselves in future. They read the terms and conditions and it said that it could change - anything in the country could change in an instant. I wonder what will happen when the NHS uni funding is removed and the fee caps can go up in line with inflation?

    Many protests are blighted by anti government protestors, many of whom are the people that make the headlines and often add violence to demonstrations. (And opportunistic *******s)

    A bit off topic, but just to get this off my chest: The NUS isn't fit for purpose and doesn't accurately represent students. I would very much support my SU leaving the NUS cult but they won't because the NUS subsidises the bar... (Ironic as you might wonder if some of the elected leaders of the NUS were pissed when making most of their decisions). :erm:

    Also the people who are signing that petition about a vote of no confidence in the PM. No. You do that once every five years unless they've lost the support of the nation. :grumble:

    My two cents and a rare post in D&CA from me!
    "Elected" leaders is pushing it a bit. It's got to be the least democratic so-called union of all time. I've been sorely tempted to bring a case calling the "union" part false advertising as they certainly don't represent students.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    The problem is for your children in about 30 - 40 years time. We have huge swaths of young people paying 9% of their salary to pay off loans that will eventually be written off. That 9% should really be going towards pension payments to make retirement liveable.

    The Tories, in introducing this system will not only cost the country more money in the long term as a result of write offs, but they have effectively mortgaged the future of all those poor soles who will be lumbered with loan repayments until they retire or die. All they have achieved is short term write-downs of university spending.
    That's 9% on everything over £21k. That amounts to 1.7% on a £26k salary. £40 a month. Hardly lumbersome, hefty, punitive or anything for a graduate earning the median national salary to cry about.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    I would much rather people protested against the unfair ELQ policy or the arbitrary age cap for postgrad loans. But I suppose that doesn't look as good on a t-shirt.

    (Original post by Reue)
    I fail to see why one adult should be entitled to a grant when another adult isn't, based purely upon their parent's income who they no longer live with.

    Removing grants was the fairest thing to do.
    But they're not adults, not according to student finance anyway. Everyone under 25 is considered to be financially dependent on their parents.

    Richer parents should be prepared to help fund their children's education - why should the tax payer if they don't need to? This was a policy aimed squarely at middle class parents who could fund their children but didn't want to.

    (Original post by Roving Fish)
    The thing is - nobody forced them into Higher Education. They wanted to go forwards into it to make a better life for themselves in future. They read the terms and conditions and it said that it could change - anything in the country could change in an instant. I wonder what will happen when the NHS uni funding is removed and the fee caps can go up in line with inflation?
    Eh? I have been forced - I want to be a teacher, which means I need a degree - I'd rather not do one to be perfectly honest, but I don’t have a choice.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Eh? I have been forced - I want to be a teacher, which means I need a degree - I'd rather not do one to be perfectly honest, but I don’t have a choice.
    That's an amazingly poor example of being forced.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Reue)
    That's an amazingly poor example of being forced.
    No it isn't. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the freedom to choose an occupation. Doubtless you will say the UK has an opt-out, but as I understand it, that isn't a real opt-out and we are still bound by it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    No it isn't. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the freedom to choose an occupation. Doubtless you will say the UK has an opt-out, but as I understand it, that isn't a real opt-out and we are still bound by it.
    And you've CHOSEN to become a teacher which has certain prerequisites. Hardly the definition of forced labour...
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Reue)
    And you've CHOSEN to become a teacher which has certain prerequisites. Hardly the definition of forced labour...
    Forced labour? :erm:

    I accept that there are prerequisites. But in order to be allowed to choose my own career, I have to go to university. There are too many bangs for me to think straight so I'll leave it at that for now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    "Elected" leaders is pushing it a bit. It's got to be the least democratic so-called union of all time. I've been sorely tempted to bring a case calling the "union" part false advertising as they certainly don't represent students.
    The NUS is a cancer on student politics. Ambitious student politics types, even if they have brains in their head, have to conform to all the jazz hands and posturing and so on. The culture percolates down, stifles student unions and stops them doing anything that would actually help students
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with where your sentiment lies, the reason this tax is regressive is that is a tax on aspiration. Students from poor backgrounds who go on to earn above average salaries (i.e. Doctors/Engineers/Lawyers), which would be an example of a meritocracy at work end up paying a disproportionate amount for their education.

    I did the maths in a previous post and it is quite easy to see.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    But since the rich guy or girl in this situation actually pays the whole amount, wouldn't they still be paying more than the rest who get most of it written off in the end? I only see a small number losing out, that being those who earn shed loads and actually pay off the full amount plus the minimal interest, at which point, well, they're pretty rich, so what's the issue?
    The main problem with this is that it is not saving the government any money now, nor is it saving future government money.

    Just because students borrow more, does not mean that they will pay back more.

    Currently an atypical student on a 4 year course (think STEM, highest earning graduates) would borrow approximately £50,000. If this graduate performs well in their career and say after 30 years they are on £85,000 p.a. and started on £25,000 p.a. (approximately £2000 a year pay rise) then at the 30 year mark they will officially pay of their loan based on 9% above £21,000 p.a. earnings. Total amount repaid ~£90,000.

    The problem is that the same student on the new scheme will borrow ~£68,000. On the same earning projections after 30 years they will have paid back ~£90,000 and the remaining debt (~£40,000) is written off.

    So in both cases the government gives out the same (approximately as the increase to £8.2k maintenance loan is to match living cost rises) amount of money, and over the course of 30 years earns the same amount of money back. Irregardless of if this amount of money for poor students is 50% loan 50% grant (as currently) or 100% loan this government SPENDS the same, and future governments EARN the same. There is no fiscal difference to the state between the two systems, the only reason it has been done is so that £1.5 bn of spending a year can be re-classed as debt so that the books can be 'balanced'.

    If this saves no money then why would the Tories bring it in? Surely they are the fiscally smart party who will save us billions?

    The reason is this is a tax on aspiration, currently due to the balance of grant and loan both students from poor, middle, and wealthy income backgrounds just about have the opportunity to pay back the loan early (accrue less interest), thus it can be described as a LOAN.

    The new system basically tells students from a poor background that you will pay 9% of your earnings above £21,000 for the next 30 years. In the above case (earning £85,000 p.a. at aged 55) it is never beneficial to pay it off early (indeed say after 10 years when your earnings would allow you to pay it off early you would pay ~£125,000 to pay it off rather than paying £90,000 over a 30 year period).

    A loan which is never paid back and is a percentage of income is NOT a LOAN, it is a TAX. The problem is that only students from poor backgrounds will be borrowing such large amounts (wealthy students who are supported by their parents only have to borrow the £9k a year in fees) that they will end up paying much more for their education.

    This is nothing short of an aspiration tax, if you are from a poor background and want to become an Engineer, a Doctor, a Lawyer. Something which your parents are not. If you want to prove that in a capitalist society anyone regardless of background can succeed, then you MUST be indebted to the STATE for wanting to do so.

    That is why the switch is morally wrong, if those of you who believe that is fair as a degree gives you access to higher earnings then you should campaign for a Graduate Tax, wherein those from wealthy backgrounds who gain a degree will ALSO pay 9%.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marshymarsh)
    I agree with where your sentiment lies, the reason this tax is regressive is that is a tax on aspiration. Students from poor backgrounds who go on to earn above average salaries (i.e. Doctors/Engineers/Lawyers), which would be an example of a meritocracy at work end up paying a disproportionate amount for their education.

    I did the maths in a previous post and it is quite easy to see.
    That doesn't make it regressive. Regressive would be those earning high salaries paying less than those earning low salaries. By your definition the top rate of income tax would also be regressive.
    Your background frankly means little when you're an independent adult. We shouldn't be playing violins for well off engineers and lawyers just because they grew up on a council estate. It's not radical wealth redistribution between classes but it's still individually progressive.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ridiculous, so called "leftists" saying that the tax of working class people should be used to pay for a load of mostly middle class students to go to university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pathetic really, the average student are more than likely not going to pay it back anyway.

    Regarding scraping the grants, likewise above it does not even matter, I have not done much research into it but the we will be entitled to a larger loan so it works out well.

    (I am from working class/lower middle class background, I will be losing my grants but do I care? Not really)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    The problem is for your children in about 30 - 40 years time. We have huge swaths of young people paying 9% of their salary to pay off loans that will eventually be written off. That 9% should really be going towards pension payments to make retirement liveable.

    The Tories, in introducing this system will not only cost the country more money in the long term as a result of write offs, but they have effectively mortgaged the future of all those poor soles who will be lumbered with loan repayments until they retire or die. All they have achieved is short term write-downs of university spending.
    So what exactly are you saying?

    Student loans are bad because it means people won't start on a pension?

    https://www.gov.uk/workplace-pensions
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    And I guess your a 'compassionate' conservative...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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