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

B986 – Reduction of Tuition Fees Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    indeed. Alas there is no tool which gives you more accurate data.
    Until you plug the assumptions based on long term trends into a spreadsheet set up correctly. Not sure where I saved mine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So... help the fortunate be more fortunate?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I only approve of lower, or even no tuition fees for those of lower incomes on certain degrees, such as physics, medicine, mathematics, the sciences in general. (Not social sciences and gender sciences all that sh*t, actual science.)
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Nay. Especially not for pointless degrees. I would support this if it were for degrees which really helped the economy, perhaps in the form of more bursaries given to those who show great commitment and hard work, but not across the board, when I think there are already enough people who seem to take the piss at uni and don't take it seriously, even in third year, and reducing the fees to 6k might make them even less bothered.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I am surprised lots of Tories have become charitable, voting agaisnt this is voting to give yourself lower total lifetime wealth. Voting in favour of lower fees for all students is voting to increase wealth available to do other things; lower fees can be paid for by cutting welfare benefits.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am surprised lots of Tories have become charitable, voting agaisnt this is voting to give yourself lower total lifetime wealth. Voting in favour of lower fees for all students is voting to increase wealth available to do other things; lower fees can be paid for by cutting welfare benefits.
    Or you can not cut this, and cut the benefits anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Or you can not cut this, and cut the benefits anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The government could, but I would have less money to spend on other things; the £4000 this bill saves me would fund a nice holiday.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The government could, but I would have less money to spend on other things; the £4000 this bill saves me would fund a nice holiday.
    It would also cost you more than £12k by the power of taxation

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It would also cost you more than £12k by the power of taxation

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Which is why I do not understand members voting against passing the cost of educating themselves from themselves, to people who rely on handouts because they did not work hard at school.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Which is why I do not understand members voting against passing the cost of educating themselves from themselves, to people who rely on handouts because they did not work hard at school.
    Because it doesn't pass the cost from ourselves, apart from to ourselves
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because it doesn't pass the cost from ourselves, apart from to ourselves
    That is not true because it depends on government policy, there would not need to be tax increases to cover the reduction in fees if the reduction was paid for by cutting existing spending we do not benefit from. I accept it is likely any government wanting to cut fees will increase taxes by a larger amount than the reduction in fees, however, it does not have to be funded like that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is not true because it depends on government policy, there would not need to be tax increases to cover the reduction in fees if the reduction was paid for by cutting existing spending we do not benefit from. I accept it is likely any government wanting to cut fees will increase taxes by a larger amount than the reduction in fees, however, it does not have to be funded like that.
    It doesn't matter whether it is done via tax increases, or spending cuts, either way taxes have to be higher than they otherwise would be for the policy; the only way that we could argue, and I would say not particularly reasonably, that there is no taxpayer paying for it would be to fund via borrowing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It doesn't matter whether it is done via tax increases, or spending cuts, either way taxes have to be higher than they otherwise would be for the policy; the only way that we could argue, and I would say not particularly reasonably, that there is no taxpayer paying for it would be to fund via borrowing.
    It does matter, if spending cuts elsewhere match the cost of this policy taxes do not need to change; it is a simple policy of shifting the burden.Cutting some spending elsewhere can have no impact on tax revenue, tax rates, and on the benefits we see from the spending cut.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It does matter, if spending cuts elsewhere match the cost of this policy taxes do not need to change; it is a simple policy of shifting the burden.Cutting some spending elsewhere can have no impact on tax revenue, tax rates, and on the benefits we see from the spending cut.
    Simple question: all else being equal, does this policy cost money? Yes? Oh, so enacting this policy necessarily increases taxes or borrowing vs not enacting it, all other things being equal.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Simple question: all else being equal, does this policy cost money? Yes? Oh, so enacting this policy necessarily increases taxes or borrowing vs not enacting it, all other things being equal.
    You are changing the goalposts, it was clearly stated in my original comment the policy can be paid for my making other things elsewhere; all other things do not have to be equal.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You are changing the goalposts, it was clearly stated in my original comment the policy can be paid for my making other things elsewhere; all other things do not have to be equal.
    Except if something else can be cut to pay for this it can be cut anyway, at which point, oh wait, you're putting costs back up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except if something else can be cut to pay for this it can be cut anyway, at which point, oh wait, you're putting costs back up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is true, however, if the tax system was perfect the cost of the policy would be shared among all tax payers, some of whom do not attend university, making a reduction in fees cheaper than paying the fees yourself.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except if something else can be cut to pay for this it can be cut anyway, at which point, oh wait, you're putting costs back up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hear hear.

    Im voting nay because this only really helps out those able to pay upfront, has little effect on debts and ultimately means spending almost £5bn on something that doesnt help the economy, or make anyone substantially better off.

    £5bn could be spent on a tax cut, infrastructure investment, or be saved to close the deficit. Not as a gift to some priviliged students.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is true, however, if the tax system was perfect the cost of the policy would be shared among all tax payers, some of whom do not attend university, making a reduction in fees cheaper than paying the fees yourself.
    Are you saying that everybody should pay the same nominal amount of tax?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are you saying that everybody should pay the same nominal amount of tax?
    The very large number of non-graduates compared to the number of graduates means the bill of educating university students can be shared among all tax payers. It would be cheaper for all taxpayers to pay a tiny bit extra in tax than the graduates paying all of their own tuition fees. That does not mean there should be a flat-rate tax, it means some of the tax revenue from non-graduates can be used to subsidise the tuition fees of graduates to make university education cheaper than if the graduates had to pay for it themselves.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2016
  • 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?
  • 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.