This discussion is closed.
.NK
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by Fry)
Why cant you afford it, your going to be earning a good income before you have to start paying anything. Why should your education be free why indeed should you get intrest free loans on the education that will ultimatley benefit you?
I agree that people should pay for a university education, but I understand that amazingtrade can't afford it - neither can I.

The money I get for a loan barely covers accommodation costs...but it leaves me with no money for food, books, tuition fees, etc. No money for the essentials, not just going out. My parents earn enough so that I have to pay full tuition fees and get the minimum loan, but they don't give me the extra that others receive from the student loans company. My flatmate, for example, gets a £4000 loan and pays less than £100 tuition fees yet her parents give her a larger allowance than mine do.

I worked over the summer after A-levels to save up enough for this year's accommodation, I don't know how I'm going to be able to afford next year's.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Also why should students be made to endure higher rates of tax (41%) which is more than high-income earners.
I've corrected this little piece of propagana* elsewhere on the site but it hasn't appeared to sink in.

The tuition fee/student loan repayment is NOT 9% of total earnings - it's 9% of total earning minus £15k.

So for someone earning £20k it works out at 2.25% of their overall income - not 9%.

For someone on £16k it's only 0.5625% of their total earnings.

For someone on £30k its 4.5% of their total income.

Plus just because you are in the 22% income tax bracket doesn't mean you pay 22% of your earnings in tax.

Someone on £16k would pay nothing on the first £4615 earned, 10% income tax on the next ~£2 and 22% on the remainder which works out at an overall income tax rate of 15% (of course this is thanks to the labour government who introduced the 10% bracket lowering *everyones* taxes previously it went direct from 0 tax to 22%).

The same applies to NI with a £4000 exempt band.

So for someon on £16k that's:
15% income tax
8% NI contributions
0.6% tuition fee/student loan repayment

23.6% overall - not 41% or anything like it.


*note just because I call it propaganda doesn't mean I'm accusing you of knowingly spreading it - just accepting something that has been said as fact without checking up on the facts yourself, and with tax calculations that's perfectly understandable.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by .NK)
I agree that people should pay for a university education, but I understand that amazingtrade can't afford it - neither can I.

The money I get for a loan barely covers accommodation costs...but it leaves me with no money for food, books, tuition fees, etc. No money for the essentials, not just going out. My parents earn enough so that I have to pay full tuition fees and get the minimum loan, but they don't give me the extra that others receive from the student loans company. My flatmate, for example, gets a £4000 loan and pays less than £100 tuition fees yet her parents give her a larger allowance than mine do.

I worked over the summer after A-levels to save up enough for this year's accommodation, I don't know how I'm going to be able to afford next year's.
The new system would give you £1000 more in loans and you would not have to pay for your tuition fees up front (and so would have £1000 more in your pocket to spend now in exchange for a bigger student loan to repay once you're earning).

In effect the new system would give you over £2000 more to live on each year.

You would be repaying your loan/tuition fees on the same rates (actually on slightly better rates) than you would now the only difference would be a longer repayment period - and even that has been limited to 25 years.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#44
(Original post by Fry)
Why cant you afford it, your going to be earning a good income before you have to start paying anything. Why should your education be free why indeed should you get intrest free loans on the education that will ultimatley benefit you?
In that case why should we get free NHS, free sub higher education etc? I am not doubting that we should pay somthing towards the cost of higher education. However I just can't help feeling some of my money will be going to silly schemes like Aimhigher.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
(Original post by JSM)
the things that wernt mentioned were that the taxpayer will fund EU students to the same degree as internal students and they will also be able to apply for bursaries (i think the second).
This is true - and has been true for years (even back to the days when we paid for 100% of university costs for EU students...I'd say charging them £3k is a bit of an improvement on that....plus because the student loans company is UK specific and paid through the UK tax system EU students are unlikely to be eligable to post-graduation fees and so will probably have to pay the £3kpa up front - for that I can spare them £300 a year).

Of course the deal with the EU means that all UK students can study at European universities on the same rates as their home students too.

Because of the language barrier this little deal doesn't actually have much impact on us at all - there are surprisingly few EU students studying here. 3.5% of undergraduate home fee payers to be exact.
0
hornblower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
A few thoughts of mine:

I personally do not mind the concepts of the new fees proposal. However, I see two sides to this slippery coin.

The sad fact is, universities desperately need more money. Mr Blair, a very wise man indeed, has had a tough time recently, but I admire him for his resoluteness. More money, although not enough as the universities would like, would come in. Good. Students who actually pay the fees can pay them after they earn according to their means. Good. Mr Blair would like more younger people in higher education. This obviously means less unemployment and bums on the street, temporarily. Good for Labour!

On the other hand, there are already a lot of Mickey Mouse courses at 'Ryman's League' universities. More 'student's will come out of these places with their BA (Hons) on pieces of Andrex - absolutely useless to society. And what for? They have wasted three years of their life, and run up a debt. It would be better if they spent their time doing a useful, enjoyable and socially important course at a college, or even stacking shelves at Sainsbury's ( - I'm serious).

Of course, my point of view may be seen as somewhat elitist and snobbish. I see education (quality education that is) to a person is something that is theirs, and something that others can't take away. It is one of the best investments you can have, and I see it without a price tag.


J.
0
TK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(Original post by hornblower)
A few thoughts of mine:

I personally do not mind the concepts of the new fees proposal. However, I see two sides to this slippery coin.

The sad fact is, universities desperately need more money. Mr Blair, a very wise man indeed, has had a tough time recently, but I admire him for his resoluteness. More money, although not enough as the universities would like, would come in. Good. Students who actually pay the fees can pay them after they earn according to their means. Good. Mr Blair would like more younger people in higher education. This obviously means less unemployment and bums on the street, temporarily. Good for Labour!

On the other hand, there are already a lot of Mickey Mouse courses at 'Ryman's League' universities. More 'student's will come out of these places with their BA (Hons) on pieces of Andrex - absolutely useless to society. And what for? They have wasted three years of their life, and run up a debt. It would be better if they spent their time doing a useful, enjoyable and socially important course at a college, or even stacking shelves at Sainsbury's ( - I'm serious).

Of course, my point of view may be seen as somewhat elitist and snobbish. I see education (quality education that is) to a person is something that is theirs, and something that others can't take away. It is one of the best investments you can have, and I see it without a price tag.


J.
stacking shelves in Sainsbury's can be fun! i used to get £7.20 an hour on sundays!
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by hornblower)
A few thoughts of mine:

I personally do not mind the concepts of the new fees proposal. However, I see two sides to this slippery coin.

The sad fact is, universities desperately need more money. Mr Blair, a very wise man indeed, has had a tough time recently, but I admire him for his resoluteness. More money, although not enough as the universities would like, would come in. Good. Students who actually pay the fees can pay them after they earn according to their means. Good. Mr Blair would like more younger people in higher education. This obviously means less unemployment and bums on the street, temporarily. Good for Labour!

On the other hand, there are already a lot of Mickey Mouse courses at 'Ryman's League' universities. More 'student's will come out of these places with their BA (Hons) on pieces of Andrex - absolutely useless to society. And what for? They have wasted three years of their life, and run up a debt. It would be better if they spent their time doing a useful, enjoyable and socially important course at a college, or even stacking shelves at Sainsbury's ( - I'm serious).

Of course, my point of view may be seen as somewhat elitist and snobbish. I see education (quality education that is) to a person is something that is theirs, and something that others can't take away. It is one of the best investments you can have, and I see it without a price tag.


J.
I doubt the second scenario will happen, the amount of places on degreee courses will not increase in the next ten years. The places that are being increased is foundation degrees which will never have the same value as BAs or BSc's but still much better to society than nothing.

The downside though is we still need dustbin men, joiners, police officers, firemen, brcikies and general office workers etc. So a lot of people with higher education will end up doing these jobs. However there greater education could mean they can give more to these jobs.
0
hornblower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
(Original post by Tinykates)
stacking shelves in Sainsbury's can be fun! i used to get £7.20 an hour on sundays!
Wow - 'replenishment assistants' have it good nowadays!


J.
0
TK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by hornblower)
Wow - 'replenishment assistants' have it good nowadays!


J.
that was only on sunday (if you were under 18) dunno why - Sainsbury's was weird.
0
serendipity
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#51
Report 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
But notice how decidedly dodgy Blair was throughout - anyway if he wants to expand access then in a few years time we will have so many uni grads that there will be a saturation in the demand for employment in all professions - we already have too many unemployed psychologists - what will be next - lower retirement age to make sure this lot have employment when they come out of uni in their droves
Precisely.

Plus what was that rubbish Blair was talking about when he said why should the dustman have to pay for the medical student to go to university?

I'll tell you why the dustman should help pay for the student to go to university.

Not purely because "the dustman will be pleased when the doctor saves his life", but because good, solid, worthwhile, well respected degrees result in graduates who will get higher paid jobs, which will in turn benefit the dustman and the like through the doctor being taxed at a higher rate. The doctor's taxes will then go on to improve transport, primary and secondary education, the NHS...the list goes on.

However, this cannot be done with Blair's ludicrous target of 50% going to university (note that this is only "going", not graduating, he of course is not to be held resposible for the thousands of students who drop out when they realise they a) are not suited to university or b) simply cannot afford it.), because a large proportion will be graduating with degrees that are no more well regarded (and in many cases less so) than a City and Guild qualification, for example, meaning that they have wasted three years of their lives and racked up debts of over £15,000 following a degree course that is not going to get them any further than the local JobCentre.

*fumes at Blair's arrogance*
0
serendipity
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by amazingtrade)
So a lot of people with higher education will end up doing these jobs. However there greater education could mean they can give more to these jobs.
Why? Why would university give them "more" if they are going to be bricklayers, which is a highly skilled job, the skills for which are not learnt at university. Not everyone is suited to university, for a whole host of different reasons, and i wish Blair would realise that there is nothing wrong with that. He is encouraging the somewhat elitest view that going to university is "better" for everyone, and does not take into account the fact that everyone is different.
0
serendipity
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
(Original post by Fry)
your going to be earning a good income before you have to start paying anything.
Actually, Blair is planning to tax graduates at an extortionate rate of 41% once they earn over £15,000 a year. That's a higher tax rate than those on £100,000 a year. Fair?
0
Daveo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
I'm a first year medical student and when i graduate with at least £30000 of debt i'll be waving it all goodbye and moving to america so stuff you and your fees Mr Blair.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
(Original post by serendipity)

*fumes at Blair's arrogance*
I think the arrogance from from students.

Why should someone pay for someone else to go and get a degree and then use the benefit and earn more anyway?
0
Daveo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by pkonline)
I think the arrogance from from students.

Why should someone pay for someone else to go and get a degree and then use the benefit and earn more anyway?
So dont you want to be able to see a doctor? Get an education in school? and have the service of many many many other graduates?
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by Daveo)
So dont you want to be able to see a doctor? Get an education in school? and have the service of many many many other graduates?
Yes i do. There are circumstance part in the public services where i think debt should be written off. But not for every degree. Plus as a dr you'd earn a lot and so why not put your hand in your own purse and pay for ur education urself rather than someone else's.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#58
Report 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by pkonline)
I think the arrogance from from students.

Why should someone pay for someone else to go and get a degree and then use the benefit and earn more anyway?
I thought you were all in favor of someone paying for someone else to go and get a degree.

In previous posts weren't you in favor of increased taxes on the "rich" and "middle classes" to pay for lower income students to go to college? Or am I confusing you with someone else?
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 16 years ago
#59
(Original post by Howard)
I thought you were all in favor of someone paying for someone else to go and get a degree.

In previous posts weren't you in favor of increased taxes on the "rich" and "middle classes" to pay for lower income students to go to college? Or am I confusing you with someone else?
No i wasn't. In principal i am pro fees if it means that those who can afford it should pay a bit back. Poorer students will be subsidised via grants and bursaries . Good workable socialist policy.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#60
Report 16 years ago
#60
(Original post by pkonline)
No i wasn't. In principal i am pro fees if it means that those who can afford it should pay a bit back. Poorer students will be subsidised via grants and bursaries . Good workable socialist policy.
Oh, sorry. I must have confused you with one of the "tax solves all brigade"

Actually though, what you describe above I'd say was a "good workable conservative policy" rather than a "socialist" one.

"Pro fees" must surely mean you are in favor of personal responsibility, where possible, for financing one's education. Doesn't sound very socialist to me.

Grants and bursaries? Oh, you mean like the one's the Tories have had for decades.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (385)
67.19%
No (188)
32.81%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed