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

David Cameron - "Before protesting, students need to get the facts straight." Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    Ame Mr Cameron. I swear to god half the people protesting don't actually know what the new system is, and all they do is say that it punishes poor children (Which it doesn't) and that it will cost 3 times as much (Which it won't for most people).
    I point this out SO much and get accused of being a rich toff, when the irony is that I just understand the policy and I am one of the poorest students I know, I have never had a job, and am having to go into my overdraft just so I can still eat, but the fees DON'T affect this! It's a BETTER system, you still take out a loan, and you pay it back when you are earning £6000 more than you pay currently! It helps the poor and taxes the rich successful people a bit higher (which IMO is completely fair). All these people saying it stops the poor going are ridiculous. The only thing stopping the poor is the lving costs of university, which are too high for me, but I am trying incredibly hard to find a job, which is what most people will be doing.

    People just see "£9000 a year" and go ape**** without actually looking into why this is necessary and how it will BENEFIT the poor if they remain poor after their degree.

    However, I disagree with the government cutting the funding for unis and research, as our teaching will be lower quality and the things the government wastes money on, like Afghanistan (but thats a debate for another place) could be better spent on this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    The only way in which the system punishes poor people is by cutting EMA - not because they are not offering substitutes, but because the substitutes are not financial, and money is precisely what poor families need. The money is meant to be for travel, stationary, etc but in reality it often goes towards household expenditure. However, the EMA system is deeply flawed, and needs to be reformed.
    You may call it 'household expenditure' but 9/10 of the people I knew getting it in college called it 'cinema, DVDs, CDs, petrol for my own personal car'...

    I'm not saying everyone who receives it spends it on things like that, but I think you're being awfully idealistic by saying it 'often' goes to people's parents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    A lot of people are getting this all wrong!

    The rising of fees is necessary - dont be angry at the fees, but at the Lib Dems for pledging to scrap them, when now it is clear that even if they miraculously got a full majority, they would be unable to do it!

    Scrapping of EMA - EMA is a means for students to buy travel, stationary, meals. It is being replaced by more direct means of help, vouchers from what I've heard. However, what the Govt is missing out is that EMA is usually passed on to parents to help them buy food for the family, otherwise the student would have to work to help provide for the family.

    The UNFAIRNESS of the new scheme - they are proposing that two people, having graduated with the same degree, from the same university, should pay different amounts for their degrees, depending on how successful they are!!! This is the part which REALLY makes me angry! It is absolutely unjust, and only appeases stupid people! Degrees should be treated as independent goods! The coalition is trying to use them as a way to tax rich people more, because they are too afraid of increasing direct taxation. Typical cowardly behaviour from the Lib Dems - no wonder it was Vince's idea. See my earlier post for details on why the scheme is unfair.

    Next time - VOTE LABOUR
    You realise that you're endorsing a party whose leader proposes a Graduate Tax, the option which clobbers success the most?

    Also, its a bit rich voting for Labour because the other parties punish success, what else would you call the 50p tax rate they introduced?

    I agree with you about EMA, but you also can't ignore that there were huge amounts of abuse of that system. I will wait and see what government proposals are, and whether they really are more targeted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    This is what I can't understand... I'm going to have a relatively large debt (by today's students' standards) when I leave university (around £40,000) and have to start paying it off when I'm earning £15,000... I'd give anything to not have to pay it off until I'm earning £21,000!
    Exactly, couldn't agree more. I'll be on the old system when I start, but if I had the new system I'd happily pay more money if it meant that I was more stable financially whilst paying it off.

    (Original post by TedleyBear)
    x
    Fair play.

    (Original post by metalthrashin'mad)
    x
    Precisely. I'm happy for people to be opposed to the new system, but the vast majority of those who are opposed to it haven't a clue how it works.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    A lot of people are getting this all wrong!

    The rising of fees is necessary - dont be angry at the fees, but at the Lib Dems for pledging to scrap them, when now it is clear that even if they miraculously got a full majority, they would be unable to do it!

    Scrapping of EMA - EMA is a means for students to buy travel, stationary, meals. It is being replaced by more direct means of help, vouchers from what I've heard. However, what the Govt is missing out is that EMA is usually passed on to parents to help them buy food for the family, otherwise the student would have to work to help provide for the family.

    The UNFAIRNESS of the new scheme - they are proposing that two people, having graduated with the same degree, from the same university, should pay different amounts for their degrees, depending on how successful they are!!! This is the part which REALLY makes me angry! It is absolutely unjust, and only appeases stupid people! Degrees should be treated as independent goods! The coalition is trying to use them as a way to tax rich people more, because they are too afraid of increasing direct taxation. Typical cowardly behaviour from the Lib Dems - no wonder it was Vince's idea. See my earlier post for details on why the scheme is unfair.

    Next time - VOTE LABOUR
    But Labour wants to introduce a graduate tax. That's a % of entire income tax that would mean the rich pay FAR MORE than the poor. They haven't specified, but let's say it's 5% of income - the number the NUS said it would have to be to work.

    Someone on 22k pays 1100 pounds a year, which is a huge amount for that level of income. Someone on 150k pays an eye popping £7500 pounds a year for the entire duration they withdraw that salary!

    That's assuming it's not progressively taxed, but who knows.

    Who the hell has said you can't pay back the loan? It's a loan, not a tax. You will pay say 5% of your income back over 21k every year. Over a thirty year period, this means;

    Someone on 22k (for example, as it's only amounts OVER 21k.) will only pay 50 pounds a year. In 30 years they will have only paid back 1500 pounds worth of their loan. That's absolutely nothing compared to Labour's tax regime, which is good because they're low income earners. However, those on 150k a year will pay 6450 pounds a year. It's an affordable amount for them - and on that salary it would take under a decade to repay the loan.

    I don't know why you're hitting out on progressiveness, if you're a Labour supporter. You sound like a really nasty Tory, wanting those at the bottom to pay lots of money they can't afford - seems to be what Ed Milliband's proposing.

    These are just from my own number crunching, with lots of factors made up or left out. But it's a basic guide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    Let me explain my argument again, I have spread it over quite a few posts, which is probably why you are misunderstanding me.

    First off, I support progressive taxing, and the rich paying more tax. In other words, I support progressive income tax.
    The new system is more or less an extention of the current income tax system.

    When it comes to degrees, a degree in subject X, at university Y, is an economic good - let's call that A. A degee in subject Z, at university Y, is another economic good - let's call that B.

    If it happens, that good A is a degree in medicine, and good B is a degree in media, it is fair to assume that good A will give the graduate more of an economic advantage than good B. Therefore, it makes sense for good A to cost more that good B.

    However, under the current proposal, two graduates can both obtain a degree in Media, from university Y -
    if graduate 1 goes on to get a highly paid job due to his personal skills and hard work, whereas graduate 2 stays unemployed because he or she is lazy, for example, graduate 1 will end up paying more than graduate 2 for their degree

    What I advocate is that the cost of the degree should be equal. Both graduates were given the same opportunity in terms of university education. 'Economic justice', so to speak, can be promoted by distributing wealth through the income tax system.
    The reason why this makes me angry is because it promotes laziness at university, and punishes success. Moreover, it is just another increase in tax, but the coalition are too cowardly to do it through direct income taxation - therefore they hide it in this reform.
    But you say it punishes success (Which it doesn't because if you earn more, even if you get taxed more you still take more money home), but the income tax system which you support also punishes success, by your definition. Think about it, income tax is to pay for healthcare, education, road maintenance etc. etc. Everybody recieves the same services from the government, yet some pay more than others but that is progressive taxing and how it works, and that's exactly the same principle as the university system. Everybody recieves the same services, but some pay more simply because they are able to.

    I'm just saying it seems hypocritical to be pro-progressive income tax yet anti progressive graduate tax when they are more or less exactly the same thing. Same services, different prices.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    Pay attention to the words in italic.

    I specified - punishes success at UNIVERSITY.

    The income system reconciles differences in natural talents, background, class - things which the graduate is not responsible for.

    Purchasing a degree - attending lectures and seminars, using the library - is just like buying a book. You should pay a set price for it. If I buy a book in computer programming today, I wont be asked to pay less for it based on the fact that I wont understand any of it.

    Income tax and graduate tax are not interchangeable - which is precisely how the coalition is treating them. They stand for different things - this needs to be recognised.
    I don't understand how you claim to agree with income-based tax but don't agree with paying different amounts for a degree.

    The same percentage of the tax my father pays goes towards the NHS. He has never been in hospital, and has only been to the doctor's about 5 times in his life. Compare this to someone paying the same percentage but who has a recurring illness or a severe accident.

    They have paid different amounts (let's assume my dad's paid more for the sake of argument), but who is getting more out of it? It's just how things work, I'm afraid - nothing is going to change that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    Pay attention to the words in italic.

    I specified - punishes success at UNIVERSITY.
    I know, but it really doesn't. The better somebody does at university the more likely they are to get a job, correct? So anybody in their right mind will try as hard as they possibly can at university because even with the new system of repaying your loan, you still taking more money home if you earn more money. This isn't punishing success one bit. Now, some idiots might deliberately fail, but as I said they're idiots because if you deliberately fail your degree, you're clearly not going to earn as much as you would do had you passed.

    The income system reconciles differences in natural talents, background, class - things which the graduate is not responsible for.

    Purchasing a degree - attending lectures and seminars, using the library - is just like buying a book. You should pay a set price for it. If I buy a book in computer programming today, I wont be asked to pay less for it based on the fact that I wont understand any of it.
    OK, The government provides services, and everybody recieves (or at least should) the same services as a result of paying that tax, but they pay different amounts, depsite recieving exactly the same thing (The book, and the university degree fits exactly with this). To say that this is acceptable but it isn't for university is silly, because you can apply that to primary and secondary education. Education is paid for by income tax (or your parents income tax). Different parents pay different amounts but all of their children recieve the same education (Again, in principle). You could argue that children have no incentive to succeed as they know that they'll pay back more money if they succeed, which by your logic is punishing success. Obviously it's their parents paying the tax initially, but on the whole how is this any different?

    Maybe I'm missing the point but it seems like you're contradicting yourself by repeating that income tax and graduate tax are different, which yes they are, but you're also saying that they serve a different purpose, which they don't. They're both to pay back the government for the same services that they provide for you, and everybody else. To say that income tax is there to redistribute wealth but not graduate tax is merely a matter of opinion, so we'll probably just keep on going round in circles anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    See my post above this one.
    I have looked at your post above that one. It was completely irrelevant. I'm giving up now, sorry. Have fun loving your kitten.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Square)
    instead of EMA why dont they give them free bus passes, book tokens and stationary vouchers, since these are what EMA is meant to be for, not clothes, DVDs and going out.
    But some EMA receivers do not bus, they bike. My boyfriend is an example. To be honest, about EMA, I do and do not agree with it. When I was in Thailand there are something like this too. However, the money was kept with the school and there is one person keeping the record of it. Anyone who is entitled to get it will go there and take out money and give a reason. But this may cost more to the government.. I don't know...

    To OP, I agree with the protest to an extent, meaning it is good to express opinion but it is not really a good thing to start breaking things and get violent - although I believed that it was mostly being hijacked.

    After reading Dave's article I don't really see how I have got my facts wrong - what he explained is basically what I already know. Students are not stupid, and of course there people who misunderstand the rising tuition fees issue but I am pretty sure most of them protestors do understand the basic ideas of it, if not in depth.

    I was shocked when it turns out to be £9000 cap on tuition fees as in Lord Browne report it was not that high. I kind of do not understand why it has to be that high. I mean why can't it be just £6000 cap or something like that?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Fewer people would of voted Conservative if they'd "done their research". Fact is most people are sheep who follow popular opinion instead of spending the time to research things themselves. Part of the problem is finding unbiased sources these days.

    This is nothing new. It doesn't change the validity of the cause either.

    I think Mr David Cameron should be happy that this is how people behave, after all he probably wouldn't be where he is today if they didn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is a sign that they're starting to cave.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TedleyBear)
    Yes but to youre statement Bill about ema, fair enough people shouldnt be going just for incentives of EMA etc. BUT, cutting ema will cause alot of the lower class students to stop going to college, which then leads to alot of them becoming lazy and bed ridden, possibly resulting to all sorts of crime. Police numbers are down so it will be easier for them to make money since there is no college, no jobs and cuts of benefits and being forced to do community jobs or whatever if its been passed
    What sorts of crimes will these bed ridden delinquents be committing exactly? I think they will find any deviant activities quite difficult to commit from the confines of their bed...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Square)
    i would hazard a guess that 90% of the people out protesting are there because of 'tory scum' because they are that narrow minded.
    Sadly, this is extremely true. If Labour were in power, they would have done exactly the same damn thing, and we would have heard barely a whimper of protest. Now I'm no defender of the Tories, but it has to be admitted that half of the protesters clearly just see the proposed fee increase as a convenient excuse to riot against the posh evil tories. If it hadn't been the fees, it would have been something else sooner or later.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Right... So Cameron is saying that instead of levying a large tax on the banks that caused and profiteered from the financial recession... He is instead going to triple the overall cost of attending higher education in our country.

    The only justification he is spouting - We have no choice, its either this or that. That in itself is a lie to trick people into thinking they are making a smart decision by evaluating both choices properly.

    The reality is.... There are more than two choices. Look deeper ffs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    I am not arguing against progressive taxation - only against applying income tax principles to the cost of a specific good - a degree. A degree should cost a set a price, and income can be redistributed through the income tax system. See my posts above for a specific explanation.
    But you're completely ignoring arguments about what you get out of a degree. This is mildly moving into philosophy - but... you gave the example above of an unemployed slacker with a bad degree from a bad university. He has gained nothing from his degree except the knowledge that if he ever manages to get out of unemployment to a low-paid job he will have to start paying it all back. He has wasted time, money, and 3 years of his life. He comes out with a bad degree and no prospects to increase this.

    Meanwhile, Mr 150k a year has got a first from a top uni. He's gone on to do very well from his degree. His degree has empowered him and allowed him to be successful - thus he gives back a proportionate amount of his success to his universities.

    But to really get this you must now imagine someone who has never been to university, but started their own company. It is successful and they earn 150k. They have not 'gotten anything' from university - they have based their success not on something they have paid for. Currently they are subsidising you and I to go to University, without having paid for or taken anything from it.

    In life, you pay for what you get. If you get more out of the end, it's fair that you pay more towards it. I don't see how you've reached the logical conclusion that someone earning small amounts of money their whole life, having taken nothing from their degree, should be putting exactly the same amount back into university as that 150k graduate is. Take it to it's conclusion, and you believe people on benefits should be paying for their university education (that got them so far in life) too!

    That is certainly not a Labour position to take. It's hard right more than anything - maybe you should examine where your political allegiances really lie.

    In short, you pay for what you get in life. A first from a top uni that propels you to an executive position is worth more than a third from a former poly that makes you a binman, so why should they pay the same towards it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aha. Thank you. Finally some sense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    agree with increase
    cut the spectrum of degrees down so those who go to uni and return with a degree will have something to offer
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    This is a prime example of what alot of these people protesting are like. Despite the fact that you only start paying back when you can afford it at 21k per year people just see 3x the fee = RIOT and then they see nothing else but that.

    But in my opinion Cameron is right about most things he has said. There are alot of misconceptions flying around and these sort of fee increases and cuts are unavoidable.

    As for EMA I agree it should be removed as the system is so flawed it's unbelievable. But another system has to replace it as poorer students cannot be left out completely but it has to be means tested to a very high degree as the majority of people in my school who get EMA should not as they only spend it on booze anyway.
    Important to note that the 21k proposal is for 2016, so it's no higher amount of money than the 15k threshold we have now.

    Cameron's trying to fool us on that in his article.

    But I do think students are deliberately ignoring the fact that there's a student loan in place covering all fees. It should mean that university is just as affordable. You'll just go on repaying it at a slow rate for a lot longer. It's still very generous compared to the American system which can rape you in the ass.

    My main problem with it is how they've slashed funding for languages; social sciences; and humanities whilst retaining science funding.

    Why isn't it useful to have Chinese and Japanese speakers; economists; and history experts?

    All this means is that instead of paying high taxes when you've graduate and are on a high income, to help fund other students, you go on paying the government for your own personal loan.

    In that sense it doesn't really make much of a difference.
    My real issue
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He's just trying to add a silver lining. like any job, what you lack in terms of income you make up for in other un-taxable benifits usually where as those that are so called "higher earners" generally have there other benifits taxed, I.e. company cars ect. alright teachers don't earn alot (to begin with) but they do get an awful lot of holiday... (far above that of most if not all lines of work)

    i agree that those that earn more should pay more, but im not sure that earning more and paying more for more work will mean that people find other means into that line of work or ditch it all together. thankfully i have 1 year left and i dont pay for uni anyway. but personally i wouldn't have gone to uni after these come into effect.

    good points or not, its still a massive negative.

    kind of like saying "We've nucked somarlia, hey, there alot of people dead, but atleast there not hungry!"
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: December 18, 2010
  • 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 newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.