Turn on thread page Beta

Top-Up Fees watch

Announcements

    [q1]>Should a wealthy person be charged more for a loaf of bread then a poor person?[/q1]

    If it was deemed a product whose price should be means tested, obviously that's what would happen.
    If you think about it, we in Britain pay more for bread etc. than someone in a third world
    country, so it's not a completely alien idea. I'm not saying that everything should be means
    tested, just that the government's current means testing system doesn't really separate 'well-off'
    from 'filthy rich'.

    How many different euphemisms do we have in this language for 'poor' and 'rich'? The sheer number of
    them must reveal something about our paranoias.

    Becca

    "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1026547059.4818.0.nnrp-13.c1ed3...ws.demon.co.uk...
    [q2]> >But, again, as I'm saying, they shouldn't. If it's a decent graduated[/q2]
    tax
    [q2]> >system, everyone should pay what they can afford.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> And some people can afford to pay £1000 out every year but notice its[/q1]
    loss,
    [q1]> whereas others don't notice it at all.[/q1]

    Yeah, and that's why we stump a few more grand on those who currently don't notice the loss of
    £1000, so that those who do feel its loss sharply don't have to pay quite so much.

    [q1]> Incidentally, my mum's a social worker so I really do know the inequality of effort put in in[/q1]
    [q1]> comparison to amount paid.[/q1]

    What sector's she in? My dad used to be in child protection, but found it really draining, then
    moved to mental health and didn't find that much better.

    Social work's awful in terms of what you have to deal with (not only the job itself, but the abuse
    and put-downs. My dad reckons social workers exist in part to ease the nation's conscience, as they
    can blame social service failure for all sorts of neglect that they couldn't be bothered to do
    anything about themselves) against the rewards you get. Despite all that, it's still something that
    interests me, although I might get disowned by a disillusioned family.

    Becky

    Becky Loader wrote:

    [q1]> "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
    [q1]> news:1026547059.4818.0.nnrp-13.c1ed3...ws.demon.co.uk...[/q1]
    [q3]> > >But, again, as I'm saying, they shouldn't. If it's a decent graduated[/q3]
    [q1]> tax[/q1]
    [q3]> > >system, everyone should pay what they can afford.[/q3]

    [q2]> > And some people can afford to pay £1000 out every year but notice its[/q2]
    [q1]> loss,[/q1]
    [q2]> > whereas others don't notice it at all.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Yeah, and that's why we stump a few more grand on those who currently don't notice the loss of[/q1]
    [q1]> £1000, so that those who do feel its loss sharply don't have to pay quite so much.[/q1]

    What a person earns and what they can afford are not necessarily directly proportional. The current
    approach seems to assume one's family has a pile of spare money lying around which they wouldn't
    spend on anything else.

    Alex

    "Alex Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Becky Loader wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q2]
    [q2]> > news:1026547059.4818.0.nnrp-13.c1ed3...ws.demon.co.uk...[/q2]

    [q2]> > Yeah, and that's why we stump a few more grand on those who currently[/q2]
    don't
    [q2]> > notice the loss of £1000, so that those who do feel its loss sharply[/q2]
    don't
    [q2]> > have to pay quite so much.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> What a person earns and what they can afford are not necessarily directly proportional. The[/q1]
    [q1]> current approach seems to assume one's family has a pile[/q1]
    of
    [q1]> spare money lying around which they wouldn't spend on anything else.[/q1]

    Example, please? If you're thinking of a mortgage or the costs of other children, those are taken
    into account...

    A friend of mine complained that, in assessing the amount of tuition fees her family should pay, the
    LEA didn't take into account the cost of music lessons for her siblings or the cost of running her
    parents' two cars, which was just ludicrous and underlined, for me, the middle-class luxury of
    complaining about tuition fees.

    Becky

    Becky Loader wrote:

    [q1]> A friend of mine complained that, in assessing the amount of tuition fees her family should pay,[/q1]
    [q1]> the LEA didn't take into account the cost of music lessons for her siblings or the cost of running[/q1]
    [q1]> her parents' two cars, which was just ludicrous and underlined, for me, the middle-class luxury of[/q1]
    [q1]> complaining about tuition fees.[/q1]

    Well, if that's the standard of living your family is accustomed to, why should *they* have to
    sacrifice things for *your* education, all of a sudden? That doesn't seem particularly fair to the
    rest of the family, to me, and don't forget there are other children involved as well - it's not
    just greedy parents throwing their huge piles of cash at unneeded "luxuries". If the family is
    unwilling to make those sacrifices, or even if the family just makes it clear to the potential
    student that they would rather not have to, surely that is putting rather a few people off going to
    university in the first place?

    Alex

    "Alex Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Becky Loader wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > A friend of mine complained that, in assessing the amount of tuition[/q2]
    fees
    [q2]> > her family should pay, the LEA didn't take into account the cost of[/q2]
    music
    [q2]> > lessons for her siblings or the cost of running her parents' two cars,[/q2]
    which
    [q2]> > was just ludicrous and underlined, for me, the middle-class luxury of complaining about[/q2]
    [q2]> > tuition fees.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Well, if that's the standard of living your family is accustomed to, why[/q1]
    should
    [q1]> *they* have to sacrifice things for *your* education, all of a sudden?[/q1]

    Why shouldn't your education be treated in the same way as music lessons and having two cars? Why
    shouldn't people budget for that as they'd budget for a holiday/new upholstery/another car if they
    can *afford* it comfortably?

    Would that everyone could have such a gripe.

    Becky

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:03:32 +0100, "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>How many different euphemisms do we have in this language for 'poor' and 'rich'? The sheer number[/q1]
    [q1]>of them must reveal something about our paranoias.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Becca[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    The English studentness outs in the end. Proliferation of synonyms as evidence for cultural
    preoccupation. I think in early English poetry there were more words for horse than woman, which
    makes you wonder. Were we as obsessed with wealth before the big T? (most of use wouldn't know,
    I suppose)

    _

    You may not be my MOONPIG, although you say you are...

    smish wrote:

    [q1]> Kinda like my dad's idea for dealing with smoking. The age limit for buying cigerettes should go[/q1]
    [q1]> up by one year, every year, until it's something stupid like 250 That way, new people won't[/q1]
    [q1]> start smoking and starting such a goddamn stupid habit.[/q1]

    Only if you're foolish enough to believe that, at the moment, people under 16 don't smoke at all.

    Alex

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:42:08 +0100, "Becky Loader" <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>"Alex Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
    [q1]>news:[email protected]...[/q1]
    [q2]>> Becky Loader wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> > A friend of mine complained that, in assessing the amount of tuition[/q2]
    [q1]>fees[/q1]
    [q2]>> > her family should pay, the LEA didn't take into account the cost of[/q2]
    [q1]>music[/q1]
    [q2]>> > lessons for her siblings or the cost of running her parents' two cars,[/q2]
    [q1]>which[/q1]
    [q2]>> > was just ludicrous and underlined, for me, the middle-class luxury of complaining about tuition[/q2]
    [q2]>> > fees.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> Well, if that's the standard of living your family is accustomed to, why[/q2]
    [q1]>should[/q1]
    [q2]>> *they* have to sacrifice things for *your* education, all of a sudden?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Why shouldn't your education be treated in the same way as music lessons and having two cars? Why[/q1]
    [q1]>shouldn't people budget for that as they'd budget for a holiday/new upholstery/another car if they[/q1]
    [q1]>can *afford* it comfortably?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Would that everyone could have such a gripe.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Becky[/q1]

    This argument is insoluble since everyone has a different conception of what middle-class or wealthy
    is; the fault-lines are more significant than the principle and, as with all forms of direct
    taxation, they can't be drawn without a crack appearing underneath someone. For top-up fees to be
    fair an amount very specific for each case would have to be calculated for each case, without
    recourse to "music lessons, two cars" generalisations.

    Also, once a family starts paying directly for higher education, should they not, by a mirrored
    principle, be allowed tax refunds as they aren't using schools anymore? The point of public services
    from their inception was that you paid what you could and the infrastructure was always available
    for you to use. Why should HE be any different? Matthew was right when he said that the proper way
    to pay for increased funding was through income tax; top-up fees acknowledges tiered-payment but
    lacks the courage to see this through on a level that would benefit all services.

    i know what i mean anyway. Tax the rich more and leave my family alone basically

    _

    You may not be my MOONPIG, although you say you are...

    "Becky Loader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> "Alex Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
    [q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
    [q2]> > Becky Loader wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q3]> > > A friend of mine complained that, in assessing the amount of tuition[/q3]
    [q1]> fees[/q1]
    [q3]> > > her family should pay, the LEA didn't take into account the cost of[/q3]
    [q1]> music[/q1]
    [q3]> > > lessons for her siblings or the cost of running her parents' two cars,[/q3]
    [q1]> which[/q1]
    [q3]> > > was just ludicrous and underlined, for me, the middle-class luxury of complaining about[/q3]
    [q3]> > > tuition fees.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Well, if that's the standard of living your family is accustomed to, why[/q2]
    [q1]> should[/q1]
    [q2]> > *they* have to sacrifice things for *your* education, all of a sudden?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Why shouldn't your education be treated in the same way as music lessons[/q1]
    and
    [q1]> having two cars? Why shouldn't people budget for that as they'd budget[/q1]
    for
    [q1]> a holiday/new upholstery/another car if they can *afford* it comfortably?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Would that everyone could have such a gripe.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Becky[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    We've been round this one so often before that I'm just observing from the sidelines. But for the
    record, basically I'm with Becky on this one!

    Ginnie

    [q3]> > > A friend of mine complained that, in assessing the amount of tuition[/q3]
    [q1]> fees[/q1]
    [q3]> > > her family should pay, the LEA didn't take into account the cost of[/q3]
    [q1]> music[/q1]
    [q3]> > > lessons for her siblings or the cost of running her parents' two cars,[/q3]
    [q1]> which[/q1]
    [q3]> > > was just ludicrous and underlined, for me, the middle-class luxury of complaining about[/q3]
    [q3]> > > tuition fees.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Well, if that's the standard of living your family is accustomed to, why[/q2]
    [q1]> should[/q1]
    [q2]> > *they* have to sacrifice things for *your* education, all of a sudden?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Why shouldn't your education be treated in the same way as music lessons[/q1]
    and
    [q1]> having two cars? Why shouldn't people budget for that as they'd budget[/q1]
    for
    [q1]> a holiday/new upholstery/another car if they can *afford* it comfortably?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Would that everyone could have such a gripe.[/q1]

    IMO education should be budgeted for by parents who are bringing up children. They should start a
    fund when the child is born and put as much as they can into it, since education is the most
    important thing a child can have. They do in america I believe.

    But in the past this hasn't been nesscary, so introducing it suddenly is bound to cause havok. We
    need a way of bringing it in gently.

    Kinda like my dad's idea for dealing with smoking. The age limit for buying cigerettes should go up
    by one year, every year, until it's something stupid like 250 That way, new people won't start
    smoking and starting such a goddamn stupid habit.

    adam

    "Flexiblegoat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    [q1]> Matthew was right when he said that the proper way to pay for increased funding was through income[/q1]
    [q1]> tax; top-up fees acknowledges tiered-payment but lacks the courage to see this through on a level[/q1]
    [q1]> that would benefit all services.[/q1]

    I completely agree with this, and in another post I wrote about a graduated 'tax' by mistake,
    because I was thinking of the fees system as a microcosm of a redistributive taxation set-up.

    I would prefer that the money were raised through tiered income tax, but that looks far less likely
    than the prospect of 'top-up' fees, which is why, in lieu, I'd support the latter.

    Becky

    [q2]>>How many different euphemisms do we have in this language for 'poor' and 'rich'? The sheer number[/q2]
    [q2]>>of them must reveal something about our[/q2]
    paranoias.
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>Becca[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]>The English studentness outs in the end. Proliferation of synonyms as evidence for cultural[/q1]
    [q1]>preoccupation. I think in early English poetry there were more words for horse than woman, which[/q1]
    [q1]>makes you wonder.[/q1]

    What better indication is there? Ah yes... the number of books dealing with class difference

    [q1]>Were we as obsessed with wealth before the big T? (most of use wouldn't know, I suppose)[/q1]

    Big T? No comprendo.. Becca

    [q1]>Yeah, and that's why we stump a few more grand on those who currently don't notice the loss of[/q1]
    [q1]>£1000, so that those who do feel its loss sharply don't have to pay quite so much.[/q1]

    Ok, I agree with that, but only as an extension of the current system. So currently people who earn,
    what £50,000 a year (?) have to pay £1000 tuition fees, ideally I would have people earning £60,000
    (or whatever) a year paying £1100 (or whatever) and continue the scale infinitively. The idea which
    the Russell group were throwing around about charging students in certain subjects up to £10,000 a
    year in top up fees is absolutely proposterous (sp?).

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]>> Incidentally, my mum's a social worker so I really do know the[/q2]
    inequality
    [q2]>> of effort put in in comparison to amount paid.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>What sector's she in?[/q1]

    She deals with OAPs who've just come out of hospital and need meals, homes refitted with disability
    aids, dogs walked etc etc. As you say, a whole lot of stress with not many rewards at the end of it.
    She's only part time at the moment but ends up working pretty much full time because she's too
    caring to stop work at three o clock if there's a little old lady desperate to go home. I wouldn't
    touch the job, or any in the public sector, with a barge pole.

    Becca

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    [q2]> >>How many different euphemisms do we have in this language for 'poor' and 'rich'? The sheer[/q2]
    [q2]> >>number of them must reveal something about our[/q2]
    [q1]> paranoias.[/q1]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >>Becca[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >The English studentness outs in the end. Proliferation of synonyms as evidence for cultural[/q2]
    [q2]> >preoccupation. I think in early English poetry there were more words for horse than woman, which[/q2]
    [q2]> >makes you wonder.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> What better indication is there? Ah yes... the number of books dealing with class difference [/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >Were we as obsessed with wealth before the big T? (most of use wouldn't know, I suppose)[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Big T? No comprendo.. Becca[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    The Countess of Finchley

    SW

    smish wrote:

    [q3]> > > Kinda like my dad's idea for dealing with smoking. The age limit for[/q3]
    [q1]> buying[/q1]
    [q3]> > > cigerettes should go up by one year, every year, until it's something[/q3]
    [q1]> stupid[/q1]
    [q3]> > > like 250 That way, new people won't start smoking and starting such[/q3]
    [q1]> a[/q1]
    [q3]> > > goddamn stupid habit.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Only if you're foolish enough to believe that, at the moment, people under[/q2]
    [q1]> 16[/q1]
    [q2]> > don't smoke at all.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Well as the age limit increases, it will be harder for underage kids to buy cigerettes. So it[/q1]
    [q1]> would work.[/q1]

    No it wouldn't. Think about cannabis.

    Alex

    [q2]> > Kinda like my dad's idea for dealing with smoking. The age limit for[/q2]
    buying
    [q2]> > cigerettes should go up by one year, every year, until it's something[/q2]
    stupid
    [q2]> > like 250 That way, new people won't start smoking and starting such[/q2]
    a
    [q2]> > goddamn stupid habit.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Only if you're foolish enough to believe that, at the moment, people under[/q1]
    16
    [q1]> don't smoke at all.[/q1]

    Well as the age limit increases, it will be harder for underage kids to buy cigerettes. So it
    would work.

    adam

    [q2]>>Yeah, and that's why we stump a few more grand on those who currently[/q2]
    don't
    [q2]>>notice the loss of £1000, so that those who do feel its loss sharply don't have to pay quite[/q2]
    [q2]>>so much.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Ok, I agree with that, but only as an extension of the current system. So currently people who[/q1]
    [q1]>earn, what £50,000 a year (?) have to pay £1000[/q1]
    tuition
    [q1]>fees, ideally I would have people earning £60,000 (or whatever) a year paying £1100 (or whatever)[/q1]
    [q1]>and continue the scale infinitively.[/q1]

    My girlfriend's parents are retired. He was a top lawyer. They live in a million pound house. She is
    on a work placement in Hong Kong. She gets maximum loan because they have no real income.

    I'm not sure income is the best indicator. Would Prince William get maximum loan?

    Craig

    [q2]>> Big T? No comprendo.. Becca[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]>The Countess of Finchley[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>SW[/q1]

    Still not enlightened I'm afraid... or was that a topical joke I didn't get? Becca

    "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1026677669.9632.0.nnrp-12.c1ed3...ws.demon.co.uk...
    [q2]> >> Big T? No comprendo.. Becca[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >The Countess of Finchley[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Still not enlightened I'm afraid... or was that a topical joke I didn't[/q1]
    get?

    When I was growing up, the first thing I remember being told about her was that, in a reverse Robin
    Hood way, she 'robs from the poor and gives to the rich'. What it is to indoctrinate your children.

    Becky
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
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.