I do get that...it's just that the maintenance loan hasn't gone up so all the extra money being lent is going to the uni in the form of a tuition fee loan, the only difference between giving it to them in the form of funding is that the student has an obligation to pay it back; I understand how the concessions mean lots of people won't be paying it back however surely more will be paid back then when no one was paying back the government subsidies in the previous system? Hence the uni is getting the same or more/less or the taxpayer is saving more than the graduates are paying??(Original post by yawn)
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.
Increasing students fees may cost the country more money than it saves! Watch
Last edited by goose1990; 16-12-2010 at 10:10.
- 16-12-2010 10:07
(Original post by Howard)
- 16-12-2010 10:34
You know it Yawn!
But job growth always lags and does odd things. Long after recessions officially end you still sometimes see surges in job losses. Public sector job losses (35,000 in 3 months) are hardly a surprise since we all knew that the Coalition were about to embark in public sector spending curtailment and that is obviously going to lead to job losses. And, here in the US unemployment remains stubbornly set at close to 10% but we're making a lot of headway in other areas - nobody is using the R word anymore. So I'm not going to use unemployment as an economic indicator.
What about other factors Yawn?
Growth? Inflation? What's happening on in the markets? Manufacturers indices? Inventories? Same store sales figures? Business confidence rates?
Forgive me if my finger has slipped briefly from the pulse but I understood that most of the news here was largely positive and pointed towards a progressive and steady-as-she-goes recovery for the UK, not a return to recession.
Consumer and business confidence are still quite below pre-recession levels aren't they, with indicators of business confidence falling slightly due to uncertainty?
I don't think the news in general is largely positive - though it does not really point to another recession. It's probably "okay" at most - anything more than that is probably an overstatement, no?Last edited by Chelle-belle; 16-12-2010 at 10:39.
(Original post by yawn)
- 16-12-2010 15:15
I don't work for the public sector Howie. And I'm far too valuable to my employer to ever be considered for 'laying off.'
Your point though is not entirely true. If one doesn't balance the numbers to be 'laid off' very carefully, then the costs to the public purse would far exceed any perceived savings. It could have disastrous effects on health, education, benefit payments, law and order and central and local government...all of which come within the sphere of public sector jobs.
(Original post by aeonflux)
- 16-12-2010 16:19
Again, you seem to be unable to understand the difference between benefits to individuals and benefits to society. Putting £100k in a fund might maximise the benefit to an individual. Subsidising the access to education benefits individuals and greater society. One is worthy of public funds, the other is not.
If you want to defend it in terms of buying increased voter participation, then ok, but I don't think many will find that argument persuasive, let alone the valuation of this at apparently several % of GDP.By the measures I listed. There is nothing subjective in them at all. Graduates on average smoke and drink less, fact. They are less likely to fall seriously ill as a result of preventable diseases, fact. The result of theses objective truths is a very real reduction in the burden of NHS costs as a result of a more educated populace. No amount of accusations of snobbery will hide the truth.
Another schoolboy error - correlation does not imply causation. Clearly whilst there may be a correlation between speedboat ownership and health, it is ridiculous to state that this is due to a causative effect. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that education has a positive effect on health.
But even granting all your empirical claims - having better health is an internalised benefit (or could be, but society deliberately chooses to socialise it, which is a separate issue), so we're still left with abandoning the two strongest arguments for subsidy (reducing income inequality, and increasing economic growth), and then implausibly valuing marginally increased voter turnout at several % of GDP*.
*btw, I'm sure you weren't making it up when you said there had been studies showing this, but UK voter participation at least has certainly not tracked higher education:
Most strikingly, the trend is in the wrong direction, and second, there is far larger variation over very short time-frames clearly due transient factors. So exactly how large is this effect meant to be, that you place such an enormous monetary value on?Last edited by Hilux; 16-12-2010 at 16:20.
(Original post by Hilux)
- 16-12-2010 17:30
Most people defend subsidising education on two grounds: first, reducing income inequality (or at least inequality of opportunity) and second on grounds that it is a better economic investment than the one the private sector would make with the money (though they rarely state it in those terms).
We are arguing that subsidising education benefits society as a whole.
Nothing about economics, or investments or money. Society.
- 16-12-2010 17:37
- 16-12-2010 18:13
- 18-12-2010 01:48
Surely it is even more basic than that. These are still government loans. In the short term it just means that it will be lending three times as much to students?
I think it might be a ploy to get more government funding to universities whilst playing the hardline and acting as if it is a way to:
A) reduce government higher education spending
B) reduce numbers attending university
C) teach those hippies a lesson!
They are appealing to the wider non-student public, who are for the most part in support of these increases.