Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No no, you're quite wrong once again, I mentioned street lights as one of a few examples of goods to which the principle of non-excludability applies, as a criticism of a policy of (near) zero taxation.

    Edaucation and healthcare are examples of Merit Goods, the economic and taxation policy implications of which, I outlined briefly in my post - if you still cant understand it, go read an economics text book.
    Rich coming from you. Are you hoping to do economics at Durham?


    Ha! That's extremely rich coming from someone who just days ago was so keen to extoll the virtues of objective truth and the weaknesses of relativism; what happened to "sticking to your principles" objectivism? :rolleyes

    There's a difference beteen having a view and than enforcing it on others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lirael)
    Maybe the EMA does need changeing but it shouldn't. It give speople the change to carry on their studies. Maybe they won't get great results but should people realy be put down for that. Also do you realy think that a person with maybe an extra £30 from a weekend or parttime job can really afford xboxs or other things. So what if they get extra money from parents. Its education.
    Most people who get EMA would be continuing with their studies anyway. The better solution would be to put more money into improving the schools especially in more deprived areas so people don't become disillusioned with education before they get the chance to do A levels. If people really need £30 a week then they can get a part time job which should pay at least £30 a week
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No it didn't. Thats why i said 'chap' because he is a male and your a female.
    I pity you, because he is very aggressive.
    You quoted his post. By quoting a post, usually, a person is talking to the person who posted it.


    Nonsence. Read the thread.
    I've read it.

    Whose paying your fee's? Government. Who funds government? Taxpayers
    And who will be a tax payer when they are older? Me. I won't resent having to pay tax when I'm older, because I've used other tax payers money pervious to the day I start paying tax. My fees being what? My loan? The one I'm planning on paying off when i earn over £15k?

    You never did answer my quesion of what you'd do if your house caught fire, or if you got attacked.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    You never did answer my quesion of what you'd do if your house caught fire, or if you got attacked.
    Yeah, or someone burgaled your house?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You quoted his post. By quoting a post, usually, a person is talking to the person who posted it.
    Would you call yourself a chap? I was very plain and when i was makin reference to you by putting your name and than a dash, just as the other person had done in their post.



    I've read it.
    Obviously not (see below)

    And who will be a tax payer when they are older? Me. I won't resent having to pay tax when I'm older, because I've used other tax payers money pervious to the day I start paying tax.
    But its about net benefit and net loss. True you'll pay tax in the future, but how do you know you will pay back the amount you consumed in your early life. Some contribute nothing, but consume great amounts of benefits.

    My fees being what?
    The £1,150 or so. I assume the taxpayer is footing that bill.

    My loan? The one I'm planning on paying off when i earn over £15k?
    I never used the word loan.



    You never did answer my quesion of what you'd do if your house caught fire, or if you got attacked.
    Its in the other thread. And as you said before such things dont belong in this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You drive a car workers have built for you, giving their children a chance in life isn't much to ask in return.
    well my parents pay more in taxes than 'workers' do, which pay for the healthcare and education of the 'workers' and their familes - why isn't anyone giving me money?

    and please stop using the term 'workers'. my dad does actually work for a living, so technically he could be called a 'worker', however i have a feeling that's not what you have in mind when you use that term... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by shyopstv)
    Most people who get EMA would be continuing with their studies anyway. The better solution would be to put more money into improving the schools especially in more deprived areas so people don't become disillusioned with education before they get the chance to do A levels. If people really need £30 a week then they can get a part time job which should pay at least £30 a week
    Yes... but let's say that 60% of people recieving EMA would continue anyway. Is the expenditure, in the long run, worth the recruitment of that 40% of people that would otherwise be priced out of education? This is the question that must be answered first. Then, at what point would the numbers render such a scheme unviable? If only one person would be encouraged, would it still be a worthwhile investment? At what point does it stop being realistic economics and become expensive idealism? This is, of course, a matter of opinion, and a decision that is extremely difficult for us to make; yet, answering these questions is vital to ascertaining the realism of a scheme of this nature.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    *sigh*

    Some people in this thread just aren't qualified to talk about this... overall most people who actually have money are gonna oppose it, but I don't see why they should because people need it to buy books, and to say "oh they're not gonna buy books" i think is just being a little ignorant and you can't generalise like that.. besides theres a limit to how many books you can buy so you might aswell spend any money leftover on treating yourself, that's what people who dont get EMA would also do... and conversley those without money are gonna be for it and probably frustrated at the fact that people for whom its ok to just pull money out of your pockets and go out and get a book are attacking them and saying how its unfair, it's all evened out in the end... the people with money get their books, the people without get theirs, and I get the feeling most people who are saying "abolish it" have never lived under the EMA income-allowance lines and therefore don't know what its like, so how can you critisise...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    Yes... but let's say that 60% of people recieving EMA would continue anyway. Is the expenditure, in the long run, worth the recruitment of that 40% of people that would otherwise be priced out of education? This is the question that must be answered first. Then, at what point would the numbers render such a scheme unviable? If only one person would be encouraged, would it still be a worthwhile investment? At what point does it stop being realistic economics and become expensive idealism? This is, of course, a matter of opinion, and a decision that is extremely difficult for us to make; yet, answering these questions is vital to ascertaining the realism of a scheme of this nature.
    With the current system we are breeding discontent. Only a very few of those who receive this benefit will really be doing what it set out to achieve, which I am not even sure about the validity of itself. If the figures are 60:40 then the scheme is wasting money in my opinion. It is not fair on the students in the system already to divert money away from them into a scheme that is not producing a significant impact. Personally it just doesn't make sense to me anyway - paying people to stay at school? Where is the incentive to achieve? The desire to learn? I very much doubt £30 a week goes far enough to suddenly turn a kid from having to work at 16 to being able to stay in education. It is not simply about receiving an education, it is about using it and maximising it. The whole idea is based on a the idea that the knowledge economy is happening when it isn't, why? Because government isn't investing enough money in technology and innovation to make it happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Would you call yourself a chap? I was very plain and when i was makin reference to you by putting your name and than a dash, just as the other person had done in their post.
    Yes, I would... :rolleyes: Frankly, it has nothing to do with EMA. I misunderstood your post, simple as that. And for the record, you didn't use my name, nor did you use a dash...

    But its about net benefit and net loss. True you'll pay tax in the future, but how do you know you will pay back the amount you consumed in your early life. Some contribute nothing, but consume great amounts of benefits.
    And who's to say I won't pay back what I've borrowed? I'm not consuming great amounts of benefits, anyway. I personally, will consume a maximum of £3,640 from EMA. And that's not correct, because the amount I'll be getting will reduce next year. And I didn't take into consideration the fact that I don't get a penny during holidays. I did take into consideration the £100 bonuses, which I probably won't get all of. So that amount is far greater than what it actually will be. And in my working life I'll pay more than that in tax. So yes, I will have paid it back. And yes, I will pay my loan back.

    The £1,150 or so. I assume the taxpayer is footing that bill.
    Tuition fees? Accommodation? I'm taking out a loan - the taxpayers money - and then I'm paying it back. So I'll merely be borrowing it. I'd be happy for them all to have it back at the end of my university life. But then that's the governements choice, not mine.


    Its in the other thread. And as you said before such things dont belong in this thread.
    In my opinion this bit does. Feel free to ignore the question, and I'll feel free not to read that thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I misunderstood your post, simple as that.
    Yes you did



    And who's to say I won't pay back what I've borrowed? I'm not consuming great amounts of benefits, anyway. I personally, will consume a maximum of £3,640 from EMA. And that's not correct, because the amount I'll be getting will reduce next year. And I didn't take into consideration the fact that I don't get a penny during holidays. I did take into consideration the £100 bonuses, which I probably won't get all of. So that amount is far greater than what it actually will be. And in my working life I'll pay more than that in tax. So yes, I will have paid it back. And yes, I will pay my loan back.

    My point is that many people consume more than they produce. Im not saying you will be one. But the welfare state makes many people into net consumers not producers.

    You will pay back the loan (if you get a job with over 15,000) but you will not have to pay back the fee's. The loan is for books, rent, food etc NOT fees. So YOU will not be paying back around 3300 at present but if your going to uni from 2006 onwards this increases to 3000 per year for many universities.



    Tuition fees? Accommodation? I'm taking out a loan - the taxpayers money - and then I'm paying it back. So I'll merely be borrowing it. I'd be happy for them all to have it back at the end of my university life. But then that's the governements choice, not mine.
    Yes it is the governments choice and thats what im criticisng, its them who after all tax us. Stop trying to divert the topic to you, you, you all the time.


    In my opinion this bit does. Feel free to ignore the question, and I'll feel free not to read that thread.
    I thought you said you had read the thread. Were you lying?

    I propose a sytem of voluntray taxation whereby if someone wants a contract insured they must pay the government a fee. They are NOT compelled to do this so its not compulaory, but if they dont and the other party breaks the contract they may not bring them to court. So anyone with sense would insure, just like people insure their possesions today. This would fund defence and law and order.

    I believe other services such as a fire brigade could be funded through private companies on smilar lines to the AA for example. Where there is a demand, the market will provide.

    Though i strongly suggest you respond to these proposals in the other thread as people get touchy about hijacking threads.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ahhh, but I'm so self centered, you see... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So burning homes which didn't have 'AA fire insurance' would be left to burn?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    Ahhh, but I'm so self centered, you see... :rolleyes:
    All i know is that your avoiding my points.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    All i know is that your avoiding my points.
    *you're.

    Because I can't be bothered anymore. I gave up a while ago, so I'm sorry for having a short attention span.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Im taking those words back, I am wrong and i did interviews from my fellow mates..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    So burning homes which didn't have 'AA fire insurance' would be left to burn?

    1) Many would be funded by charties for the reasons ive suggested in my thread, thus even those few who choose not to insure would still be covered in practice.
    2) If someone's house or flat is on fire and its spreading to houses/flats with insurance than the fire will be put out for all even thouse without insurance.
    3) People will get insurance. Its just common sense. If the dont thats their fault and i cant be held responsible for their stupidity. Why does their lack of reason legitimise theft?

    You should put your future points into the thread 'is taxation theft?'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    *you're.

    Because I can't be bothered anymore. I gave up a while ago, so I'm sorry for having a short attention span.
    With that attitude you won't get far.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasht)
    EMA is not a good thing, most students come for the money and do badly in school. If only decent jobs would require further education then students would be forced to get education.. rather than paying em..
    Am I in a really odd area or something? Not that many people who get EMA are **** at what they do, infact they're among the cleverest in the year, and they work hard because they don't want to be stuck on benefits for the rest of their life... It seems that's just in my school though... :confused: :s:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    With that attitude you won't get far.
    Really? I'm getting pretty far already I'd say.
    I'm predicted ABB, which is the entry requirement for Durham, and I'm starting an AS in maths in year 13 so I can do a biochemistry course there. I'd say I'm pretty determined to do well.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,001

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
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.