Turn on thread page Beta

Tony Blair is pushing it now!!!!! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We dont want too many people going to uni.
    There are already too many phd qualified people either unemployed or working in a supermarket!!!
    *-*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemBOOM)
    We dont want too many people going to uni.
    There are already too many phd qualified people either unemployed or working in a supermarket!!!
    *-*
    Stange how I havn't met any then.

    I know quite a few young doctorates struggling on $20k a year in junior lectruring and research positions but don't know any who are actually stacking shelves in Netto.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Yes - and I'm afraid it's inaccurate.

    lets compare 2 students one not entitled to any help, one entitled to all of it (and for simplicities sake lets call them Rich and Poor).

    Rich

    £3000 fees * 3 yrs = £9000
    £3000 loans * 3 yrs = £9000

    Total debt £18000, income from loans while studying £3000pa.

    Poor

    £2000 fees * 3 yrs = £6000
    £4000 loans * 3 yrs = £12000

    Total debt £18000, income from loans while studying £4000pa + £1300pa in grant+bursary


    The resultant debt will be the same - however the living costs funded by the state/loans will be much higher for a student from a low income family.
    so it automatically assumes that the rich kid will get funded through university by his parents and penalises him. Isn't that discriminatory and the poorer student can take out the same amount of low interest debt as the rich one and therefore leave with less.
    • Answer Heroes
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Answer Heroes
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Howard)
    Stange how I havn't met any then.

    I know quite a few young doctorates struggling on $20k a year in junior lectruring and research positions but don't know any who are actually stacking shelves in Netto.
    Yup - and thankfully some of the extra funding from tuition fees and the money from the government will go towards increasing the low pay for junior academics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Stange how I havn't met any then.

    I know quite a few young doctorates struggling on $20k a year in junior lectruring and research positions but don't know any who are actually stacking shelves in Netto.
    PErhaps slightly out of proportion.
    It used to be really elite to have a degree. Now its just a poece of paper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    I can accept this point, however I still think it's based on a misconception and as such educating people as to the reality of the situation is the best course of action.
    I agree.. but I don't know think the government can or will break this misconception. Blair is trying to encourage them through unrealistic "incentives" that won't solve the problem.

    What will solve the problem is higher taxes I heard on the TV today that if some of the highest earners were taxed just 3 per cent then that would be more than enough for universities to expand in fields of research and provide good quality education
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I agree.. but I don't know think the government can or will break this misconception. Blair is trying to encourage them through unrealistic "incentives" that won't solve the problem.

    What will solve the problem is higher taxes I heard on the TV today that if some of the highest earners were taxed just 3 per cent then that would be more than enough for universities to expand in fields of research and provide good quality education
    so, they already pay too much, compared to what they get out of the welfare state. That would be socialist as opposed to New Liberal.
    • Answer Heroes
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Answer Heroes
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JSM)
    so it automatically assumes that the rich kid will get funded through university by his parents and penalises him. Isn't that discriminatory and the poorer student can take out the same amount of low interest debt as the rich one and therefore leave with less.
    Yes it assumes that a person from a £32,000 household will get more support than a person from a <£15,000 household. I'd say that's a fair assumption, however as with all of these policies there have to be definite boundaries and the people who are slightly over or under a boundary will suffer inproportionately.

    One benefit for the students from middle income families is that they effectively have £1000pa more in their pocket while studying (that they would currently be paying in up front tuition fees) - and if their parents are funding them through university it will be their parents who get the extra cash now.

    There are losers under every system however I do believe the new system has fewer losers than the current one and as an added bonus it increases the funding to universities making the quality of our workforce and our education system worldclass.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemBOOM)
    PErhaps slightly out of proportion.
    It used to be really elite to have a degree. Now its just a poece of paper
    Well, it's more than just a piece of paper. But, it certainly isn't a mark of elitism any more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont agree with the asumption that just because your parents earn over £30k etc that they are going to be throwing money at our uni education for 3-4 years
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I heard on the TV today that if some of the highest earners were taxed just 3 per cent then that would be more than enough for universities to expand in fields of research and provide good quality education
    That's based on the assumption that rasing the tax rate will increase tax revenue. It may, or it may not. I would be interested in reading about this person's reasoning though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Yes it assumes that a person from a £32,000 household will get more support than a person from a <£15,000 household. I'd say that's a fair assumption, however as with all of these policies there have to be definite boundaries and the people who are slightly over or under a boundary will suffer inproportionately.

    One benefit for the students from middle income families is that they effectively have £1000pa more in their pocket while studying (that they would currently be paying in up front tuition fees) - and if their parents are funding them through university it will be their parents who get the extra cash now.

    There are losers under every system however I do believe the new system has fewer losers than the current one and as an added bonus it increases the funding to universities making the quality of our workforce and our education system worldclass.
    yes, but isnt that a big assumptiojn to make as most middle class families have little or no disposable income and that does not take into account things like how many kids they have.
    • Answer Heroes
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Answer Heroes
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by ChemBOOM)
    I dont agree with the asumption that just because your parents earn over £30k etc that they are going to be throwing money at our uni education for 3-4 years
    no but the assumption that if your parents earn less than £15k they wont be able to help you at all is valid


    Where would *you* draw the boundaries?
    • Answer Heroes
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Answer Heroes
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JSM)
    yes, but isnt that a big assumptiojn to make as most middle class families have little or no disposable income and that does not take into account things like how many kids they have.
    Yes it does - the means testing takes into account certain expenditure, included an *assumed* expenditure on other children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    so, they already pay too much, compared to what they get out of the welfare state. That would be socialist as opposed to New Liberal.
    As long as there is a total welfare gain, what's the problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    As long as there is a total welfare gain, what's the problem?
    that they pay even more for something that they do not benefit directly from.
    • Answer Heroes
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Answer Heroes
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JSM)
    that they pay even more for something that they do not benefit directly from.
    It would be satisfying though - specially if there was a special politician tax
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    so, they already pay too much, compared to what they get out of the welfare state. That would be socialist as opposed to New Liberal.
    I'm talking about the top TOP earners who are wealthy enough to get lawyers to find loopholes to get them out of paying virtually any tax.. I don't agree that they are already paying too much..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I'm talking about the top TOP earners who are wealthy enough to get lawyers to find loopholes to get them out of paying virtually any tax.. I don't agree that they are already paying too much..
    They already pay a great amount, also is it realistic for Labour to do this? They will lose the vote of Middle England - hence won't

    Why should gradutes not contribute more, when they private benefit they get is HUGE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    They already pay a great amount, also is it realistic for Labour to do this? They will lose the vote of Middle England - hence won't

    Why should gradutes not contribute more, when they private benefit they get is HUGE.
    As I said before.. the economist that said this was referring to the very highest earners.. not the middle classes.

    Labour didn't start out with the support of Middle England.. I think it should consider its roots for a change
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

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.