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

Poorer students will now get 2 free years uni. another attack on middle income family Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    :rolleyes:

    What a drolly predictable response. I'm sure everyone who doesn't get this grant will notice a marked reduction in their quality of life.
    And if it's not directly responsible for a marked drop in life quality, it must mean it's not happening!!

    That's how it happens. That's how you end up with a society where people spend the first several hours of their working day working for the government, the treasuries coffers are larger than they've ever been and they still spend more money than they gain in tax for 10 out of 12 years of growth. I'm not saying this is right or this is wrong; I'm merely saying that assuming you can spend infinitely because "hey, an extra several billion won't hurt!" is woefully ignorant and is the refuge of people who refuse to justify why my tax money should be spent on whatever it is they want. It doesn't matter if it's for social housing, university, nuclear missiles or transport links; people shouldn't disregard the cost of taxing people in such a flippant manner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    scumbag.
    Oh, how mature! :rolleyes:

    Care to explain why you have resorted to childish insults?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    At least she was contributing to the argument unlike what you and me are doing. :rolleyes:
    Speak for yourself

    That was my first foray into this argument. I usually don't like to get involved in these any more, but I saw that, and just thought :facepalm:

    I have explained the rationalisation behind my intial :facepalm: though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Only 18,000 students will be affected for one thing.
    Secondly, statistically, very few of those students will be eligible for the two year help.
    Thirdly, regardless, only one year is funded by the government, the second is funded by the university itself, and only if the student attends a university that requires £9,000 a year.

    So, this is a drop in the proverbial ocean of students.

    But disregarding that, how on Earth is this the middle classes "losing out?"

    It's not as though you're being hampered, it's not as though this was available to you before, but it's been removed. In fact, it's not "the working class" that will be eligible. It's one very small sector of the working class. People who recieve such low amounts of money, that their children probably wouldn't dream of attending university.

    I just don't see why so many, when they have so much, are sickened when they see an attempt to help those with so little.
    18,000 people getting cheaper education than I will. The same course at the same uni should cost the same.

    We're losing out because some are getting (partially) free education!

    Lol "wouldn't dream of attending uni", there's student loans available.

    I'm not sickened at helping people - I'm sickened at the fact someone, attending the same uni course as I am (potentially), gets it cheaper.

    It's discrimination!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The middle class always get screwed over, I wouldn't be outraged about it because it's predictable. It's been happening for years and yet people still insist on the same old governments hoping someday they'll actually act like the party for the middle class...

    Anyway, this is a stupid proposal, it's going to get abused by many people - just like EMA did. People with businesses can fiddle numbers so their kids can get free years at University and people can go pretend the live with grandparents/lower earning parent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Haha, we're nowhere near upper!

    It's just £26,000 doesn't seem a lot, especially as most households usually have two children. I'm an only child, and I can't imagine living on that, so.. :/
    Naive. Take a look at some income statistics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...United_Kingdom or http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_...le-jan2010.pdf. You'll note that only 25% earn more than £30,000 and the majority of people don't earn more than £26,000.

    If someone "can't imagine" earning £26,000, they are definitely not in the squeezed middle no matter how "middle class" they think they are. Its no good complaining about high taxes on the one hand and wanting the state to pay for your tuition on the other. If your parents can afford it, they need to take some responsibility instead of letting the state do everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Naive. Take a look at some income statistics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...United_Kingdom or http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_...le-jan2010.pdf. You'll note that only 25% earn more than £30,000 and the majority of people don't earn more than £26,000.

    If someone "can't imagine" earning £26,000, they are definitely not in the squeezed middle no matter how "middle class" they think they are. Its no good complaining about high taxes on the one hand and wanting the state to pay for your tuition on the other. If your parents can afford it, they need to take some responsibility instead of letting the state do everything.
    Lol, you can be middle class and not know how a family can survive on that.

    I'm not asking the state to pay for mine - I'm asking it not to pay for anyone's. It's not fair that people could get their course cheaper than everyone elses.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    And if it's not directly responsible for a marked drop in life quality, it must mean it's not happening!!

    That's how it happens. That's how you end up with a society where people spend the first several hours of their working day working for the government, the treasuries coffers are larger than they've ever been and they still spend more money than they gain in tax for 10 out of 12 years of growth. I'm not saying this is right or this is wrong; I'm merely saying that assuming you can spend infinitely because "hey, an extra several billion won't hurt!" is woefully ignorant and is the refuge of people who refuse to justify why my tax money should be spent on whatever it is they want. It doesn't matter if it's for social housing, university, nuclear missiles or transport links; people shouldn't disregard the cost of taxing people in such a flippant manner.
    Strawman argument. My post was addressing the assertion that helping someone is synonymous with harming another - the (implied) assertion that providing funding for one person has an equal and opposite effect on another (which is, at best, a grossly misleading way of describing the distribution of wealth and, at worst, a complete fabrication); not whether it is a prudent application of tax money.

    It seems quite clear to me that the issues being raised in this thread are nothing to do with taxes and are entirely to do with the extremely greedy notion that a positive for another is a direct negative for oneself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mellie220)
    The middle class always get screwed over, I wouldn't be outraged about it because it's predictable. It's been happening for years and yet people still insist on the same old governments hoping someday they'll actually act like the party for the middle class...
    This is a myth. People on middle incomes get a large subsidy from the government. People don't start paying more in tax than they get in benefits/healthcare/education/infrastructure/police until they are earning well over 40k.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This is a myth. People on middle incomes get a large subsidy from the government. People don't start paying more in tax than they get in benefits/healthcare/education/infrastructure/police until they are earning well over 40k.
    Yeah....middle class people.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Lol, you can be middle class and not know how a family can survive on that.

    I'm not asking the state to pay for mine - I'm asking it not to pay for anyone's. It's not fair that people could get their course cheaper than everyone elses.
    How can a middle class person not understand how people on middle incomes survive???

    If you can't understand how people on middle incomes get by, then you are rich. Simple as. You may feel that you are "middle class" in the "class" sense of the word, but in terms of income you are rich.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's still a debt at the end of the day and a hassle at that, I know people in their 30s paying off a relatively minute debt in comparison to the debt to come. I don't want to be paying this off for the majority of my working life.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This is a myth. People on middle incomes get a large subsidy from the government. People don't start paying more in tax than they get in benefits/healthcare/education/infrastructure/police until they are earning well over 40k.
    What kind of subsidys?
    Sure, the middle class do get their healthcare etc. but so do the upper class and lower class - in lower class neighborhoods they have much more expenditure (well, they do in the North). What do the middle class get which other classes don't get?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Yeah....middle class people.
    Per the statistics I linked to, these are the top 10% of earners. 10% of people earn 40k or more. You can't sensibly describe the richest 10% as being in the middle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    18,000 people getting cheaper education than I will. The same course at the same uni should cost the same.

    We're losing out because some are getting (partially) free education!

    Lol "wouldn't dream of attending uni", there's student loans available.

    I'm not sickened at helping people - I'm sickened at the fact someone, attending the same uni course as I am (potentially), gets it cheaper.

    It's discrimination!
    Really? Your parents won't help you out at all? Doubt that.

    If they weren't helped, they would be paying more than you.

    Again, you're not losing out, and if you think you are, it really speaks about what sort of person you are. Do you kick up a fuss when disabled people are allowed to cut in front of you in lines for rollercoasters? They're taking a spot that would have been yours, you're "losing out." In essence, you're also saying that people who get free school meals make you "lose out" when they get meals for free. Incidentally, the only people eligible for this scheme are the same people who recieve free school meals.

    Student loans, it's really not that simple. I know of a few people who are intelligent enough to attend university but have decided not to, due in part to anxiety of having to pay the money back. When will you understand that the world really isn't like whatever Lowry-esque image you have in your head, people have serious problems, they worry about money, they don't have ambition because they haven't seen anyone succeed. When you hear of people who have become great from relatively nothing (Sir Alan Sugar for example) what makes their stories so amazing is that they managed to come from that background and succeed. Now, if everyone could do that, it wouldn't be amazing would it? No, and the reason is, many people don't have that drive, for various reasons.

    Look, I'll be honest, do I even personally like this idea? No. I would prefer if the fees weren't going up this substantially at all. But do I think if they are going to raise them so dramatically that these students wouldn't be affected? No. The reason for this policy is to attempt to offset the likely plummeting in application rates to university from this group in particular. So the idea is one that is rather good, but one that seems to me as more of a necessary response, like tourniqueting an amputated leg. You'd rather not have to amputate the leg, but if you're going to, you'd damn well better stem the bleeding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    How can a middle class person not understand how people on middle incomes survive???

    If you can't understand how people on middle incomes get by, then you are rich. Simple as. You may feel that you are "middle class" in the "class" sense of the word, but in terms of income you are rich.
    That's not a middle income though is it...

    Lol I wouldn't say we were rich, neither would my parents...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    It seems quite clear to me that the issues being raised in this thread are nothing to do with taxes and are entirely to do with the extremely greedy notion that a positive for another is a direct negative for oneself.
    1000 times this.

    I don't see how people think someone needing help recieving it equates to them losing out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Link?
    I very much doubt the threshold is that high. Half your figure and you will probably be right.




    This. I am so happy someone else has made this point. Yes, some richer parents will not support their kids at uni. But, if their kids do end up in financial trouble, and do need the help, then the parents WILL help. Poorer parents wouldn't, cos they physically could not afford to.
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/savings...icepage_id=120

    At the bottom, it is that high.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    Strawman argument. My post was addressing the assertion that helping someone is synonymous with harming another - the (implied) assertion that providing funding for one person has an equal and opposite effect on another (which is, at best, a grossly misleading way of describing the distribution of wealth and, at worst, a complete fabrication); not whether it is a prudent application of tax money.

    It seems quite clear to me that the issues being raised in this thread are nothing to do with taxes and are entirely to do with the extremely greedy notion that a positive for another is a direct negative for oneself.
    You declaration that my post was a strawman appears to hinge totally on the idea that the funding of poorer people has an "equal" and opposite effect, but I don't know where you got that bit from. Neither I, nor the person you were quoting said it was an equal effect. But it is an effect nontheless, and the rest of my post is entirely valid - that you can't justify any and all taxation on the basis that "it doesn't directly harm you". All products of taxation should have to be vociferously justified - and if they're just causes, that shouldn't be hard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Really? Your parents won't help you out at all? Doubt that.

    If they weren't helped, they would be paying more than you.
    They'll help me pay off the loan and accomodation (I think), but so what? They can afford their own children...

    Again, you're not losing out, and if you think you are, it really speaks about what sort of person you are. Do you kick up a fuss when disabled people are allowed to cut in front of you in lines for rollercoasters? They're taking a spot that would have been yours, you're "losing out." In essence, you're also saying that people who get free school meals make you "lose out" when they get meals for free. Incidentally, the only people eligible for this scheme are the same people who recieve free school meals
    Yes, I am. And it depends what type of disability. Usually, no, I don't mind. If it's someone milking something minor, than yeah I would. Lol school dinners are horrible anyway! That's not the point though.

    Student loans, it's really not that simple. I know of a few people who are intelligent enough to attend university but have decided not to, due in part to anxiety of having to pay the money back. When will you understand that the world really isn't like whatever Lowry-esque image you have in your head, people have serious problems, they worry about money, they don't have ambition because they haven't seen anyone succeed. When you hear of people who have become great from relatively nothing (Sir Alan Sugar for example) what makes their stories so amazing is that they managed to come from that background and succeed. Now, if everyone could do that, it wouldn't be amazing would it? No, and the reason is, many people don't have that drive, for various reasons.
    If you can't see the long term benefits, than that's your problem.

    Look, I'll be honest, do I even personally like this idea? No. I would prefer if the fees weren't going up this substantially at all. But do I think if they are going to raise them so dramatically that these students wouldn't be affected? No. The reason for this policy is to attempt to offset the likely plummeting in application rates to university from this group in particular. So the idea is one that is rather good, but one that seems to me as more of a necessary response, like tourniqueting an amputated leg. You'd rather not have to amputate the leg, but if you're going to, you'd damn well better stem the bleeding.
    I understand what you're saying, but the bottom line is it's not fair. Why should the same product (in this case, Uni course) from the same provider cost more for me?
 
 
 
  • 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?
  • 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.