Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 11:36:01 GMT 1
I dont if im honest, know enough about Labours scheme prior to the condems to turn this into a party political issue, though i would love to , but this doesnt seem fair to me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12767850It seems that the government is spreading the payments over a longer period of time, so initial payments are lower. But the downside is that the extra interest this will incur means people will end up paying up to twice the original debt back. oh, and according to david willets (university minister) this morning, early repayments will receive a financial penalty. So the message seems to be, unless your fortunate enough to have parents who can afford to pay your fees up front for you, you are going to get screwed. Another case perhaps of the wrong people being made to pay for the financial sectors **** ups.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Square Wrexham on Mar 17, 2011 11:45:51 GMT 1
Do you ever post about the Town?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 12:30:39 GMT 1
Do you ever post about the Town? Yep . Do you?
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 17, 2011 14:09:44 GMT 1
It seems that the government is spreading the payments over a longer period of time, so initial payments are lower. But the downside is that the extra interest this will incur means people will end up paying up to twice the original debt back. But how much less in value will "twice" the original debt be when including the fact the value is consistantly being eroded by inflation, and over a longer period of time? Without that figure, the numbers don't help much. Paying back £83,000 by then may only be like paying £60,000 now.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 17, 2011 14:39:53 GMT 1
It seems that the government is spreading the payments over a longer period of time, so initial payments are lower. But the downside is that the extra interest this will incur means people will end up paying up to twice the original debt back. But how much less in value will "twice" the original debt be when including the fact the value is consistantly being eroded by inflation, and over a longer period of time? Without that figure, the numbers don't help much. Paying back £83,000 by then may only be like paying £60,000 now. 60K is still a huge financial burden to shoulder for most people , though, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Rusholme Ruffian on Mar 17, 2011 16:05:44 GMT 1
I'm still at uni. At my last check i was 27k in debt, and that will increase by about another 7k before i go. Lets face it, unless i stumble into something very well paid, i am simply never going to pay it back. With the new fees, it will be exactly the same but twice as bad. My main concern is that this ridiculous figure will put off the majority of people from going into Higher Education. Look at the US, it will simply create a much more divided society
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 16:43:43 GMT 1
Paying back £83,000 by then may only be like paying £60,000 now. Oh well that's ok then. Thanks for putting it in perspective for me!
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Mar 17, 2011 16:58:45 GMT 1
I live with 3 medicine students, 2 of them come from poor families. They're extremely fortunate to have this 3,200 tuition fee a year until they finish. However, people like them who will want to do medicine next year will end up having to pay off way over £100,000! Disgusting amount. Its just going to fill up medicine with pompus t**ts who come from a well-off background and then, we'll have even more of these stuck up dr's that we have nowadays!
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 17, 2011 16:59:05 GMT 1
Oh well that's ok then. Thanks for putting it in perspective for me! My point is to do with the accuracy of the numbers. Let's compare like with like. There is a big difference between "going to university" and "getting qualified" If someone is going to get qualified then it is not a lot of money. Not a lot if it allows you to make an extra £10,000 a year for the next 35 years of working life. Ignoring inflation: £83k gets you £350k, so you're up £267,000 For many professions the gap is bigger than that. For others it isn't, and the bottom line questions are: 1) Who should pay for you to have better earnings potential: me (as a taxpayer), or the person who earns more? 2) Who should pay for people to go off to university just because they want to? Them? Or me, as a taxpayer? If colleges do have clear policies for those from low income backgrounds (such as the ones being proposed), thent he only people who really lose out now are those who go to university for a doss.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 17, 2011 17:03:07 GMT 1
I live with 3 medicine students, 2 of them come from poor families. They're extremely fortunate to have this 3,200 tuition fee a year until they finish. However, people like them who will want to do medicine next year will end up having to pay off way over £100,000! Disgusting amount. Its just going to fill up medicine with pompus t**ts who come from a well-off background and then, we'll have even more of these stuck up dr's that we have nowadays! 1) Just because someone comes from a well off background does not make them pompous 2) Most doctors earn over £60,000 a year, many well over £100,000. Even at a conservative estimate, after fees of £100,000, they will still be left with £1.7million over a 30 year working life. And it WILL be worth their while if they don't have to pay the money back until they earn some. How is that less fair than the current system where the lower income parents you mention are paying tax to subisidise those from well off backgrounds going to do medicine? The ones who went to public school and got 11 A* at GCSE and got into med school are being subsidised by basic rate taxpayers to allow them to earn over £100k a year?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 17, 2011 19:43:08 GMT 1
Oh well that's ok then. Thanks for putting it in perspective for me! There is a big difference between "going to university" and "getting qualified" So should degrees such as English Literature and History not be paid for by the taxpayer as they don't necessarily qualify you for anything. I work with a girl who has a Maths degree, the job we're in isn't a 'graduate' job, so this hasn't necesarily qualified her for anything specific. Which are the 'real' degrees, and which aren't? Who should pay for people to go off to university just because they want to? Them? Or me, as a taxpayer?So, should access to higher education - or at least some degrees - be dictated by your ability to pay? When did this 'why should I pay for you' attitude come to infest everything. Don't we, as a society, put a value on education for educations sake?
|
|
|
Post by Bordershrew on Mar 17, 2011 19:47:27 GMT 1
A lot of hot air spouted about these fees (mostly by the left) but no-one ever comes up with the idea of who should pay it?
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Mar 17, 2011 19:49:58 GMT 1
Do you ever post about the Town? Yep . Do you? Someone else noticed.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 17, 2011 20:07:15 GMT 1
So should degrees such as English Literature and History not be paid for by the taxpayer as they don't necessarily qualify you for anything. I work with a girl who has a Maths degree, the job we're in isn't a 'graduate' job, so this hasn't necesarily qualified her for anything specific. Which are the 'real' degrees, and which aren't? No degree is "right" or "wrong" in terms of employment: it is about what people want to do with it. If your degree doesn't get you a decent job you won't have to pay your loan back anyway. If it does you'll pay a bit more per month to account for the fact you've had thousands of pounds of education with no up front cost to help you earn that amount. And if it does encourage people to choose more vocational subjects or have a clear plan ahead then i think that is good. I prefer that than people who take a £27,000 subsidised university place without really knowing why they want to. So, should access to higher education - or at least some degrees - be dictated by your ability to pay? But they won't be. That question is utterly misleading. The "cost" of your education will be linked to your ability to earn afterwards, not your ability to pay either before or during it. Of course we value education, and we should. But why should someone with less money subsidise someone from a well off background to go and earn more in the future? They get the grades for university by going to a public school, and low rate taxpayers help subsidise their place. That can't be right can it?
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Mar 17, 2011 20:20:58 GMT 1
I dont if im honest, know enough about Labours scheme prior to the condems to turn this into a party political issue, though i would love to , but this doesnt seem fair to me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12767850It seems that the government is spreading the payments over a longer period of time, so initial payments are lower. But the downside is that the extra interest this will incur means people will end up paying up to twice the original debt back. [glow=red,2,300]oh, and according to david willets (university minister) this morning, early repayments will receive a financial penalty.[/glow] So the message seems to be, unless your fortunate enough to have parents who can afford to pay your fees up front for you, you are going to get screwed. Another case perhaps of the wrong people being made to pay for the financial sectors **** ups. That part strikes me as utterly ridiculous
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 20:38:27 GMT 1
this is an adult conversation, go back to your stickle bricks.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Mar 17, 2011 20:44:54 GMT 1
Oh well that's ok then. Thanks for putting it in perspective for me! My point is to do with the accuracy of the numbers. Let's compare like with like. There is a big difference between "going to university" and "getting qualified" If someone is going to get qualified then it is not a lot of money. Not a lot if it allows you to make an extra £10,000 a year for the next 35 years of working life. Ignoring inflation: £83k gets you £350k, so you're up £267,000 For many professions the gap is bigger than that. For others it isn't, and the bottom line questions are: 1) Who should pay for you to have better earnings potential: me (as a taxpayer), or the person who earns more? 2) Who should pay for people to go off to university just because they want to? Them? Or me, as a taxpayer? If colleges do have clear policies for those from low income backgrounds (such as the ones being proposed), thent he only people who really lose out now are those who go to university for a doss. Didn't you go to Uni? You seem pretty keen to pull up the drawbridge after you. My youngest is currently going through the Uni selection procedure and I find your comments about people going to Uni for 'a doss' insulting to her and her very hard working fellow students. However you try to spin the debt, it will put off people from lower income families - not only will they have the debt hanging over them for years, they will have all the other expense of setting up home etc. If you earn more money as a by product of having a degree you will pay more tax - that's how you pay for your education. You seem ignore the value to the country of having an educated population - 'people who go off the university just because they want to' - words fail me.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Mar 17, 2011 20:48:24 GMT 1
this is an adult conversation, go back to your stickle bricks. Go and sit back on your left wing cloud
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 17, 2011 21:22:47 GMT 1
If you earn more money as a by product of having a degree you will pay more tax - that's how you pay for your education. Not if you get a degree in accountancy. A by-product of having the degree will be knowing how to avoid more tax. Back in the good ol' 90s, I got a student loan (before grants were phased out, and tuition fees became payable by all). Still have 1/4 of it to pay off, as I only broke the income ceiling for 2 years since, even though I considered myself to be reasonably well-off for about 5 times that period, and milked the fact that I didn't *have* to pay. I'm now nowhere near breaching the income ceiling, but going to pay off the remainder anyway. Why? Because the State ( the Taxpayer) were willing to give me a chance to excel at their risk. Frankly, I blew that chance, came out with no extra qualifications, but still gained from the teaching and the experience (and 2 jobs from related simple truth economies on applications/CVs ), so I'd like to settle up rather than abuse the system's generosity (or stupidity) any longer. I won't suffer any hardship for it at all, can still pay all the bills and have a decent bit of leftovers for luxuries. I'm unsure what the new-style loans terms are, but if they're anything like mine (payment deferred for earning less than 500/week currently), they could do with cutting in some token repayments at a lower income, to stop debt-dodgers like me getting away with it so easily.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 17, 2011 23:45:24 GMT 1
So should degrees such as English Literature and History not be paid for by the taxpayer as they don't necessarily qualify you for anything. I work with a girl who has a Maths degree, the job we're in isn't a 'graduate' job, so this hasn't necesarily qualified her for anything specific. Which are the 'real' degrees, and which aren't? No degree is "right" or "wrong" in terms of employment: it is about what people want to do with it. If your degree doesn't get you a decent job you won't have to pay your loan back anyway. If it does you'll pay a bit more per month to account for the fact you've had thousands of pounds of education with no up front cost to help you earn that amount. And if it does encourage people to choose more vocational subjects or have a clear plan ahead then i think that is good. I prefer that than people who take a £27,000 subsidised university place without really knowing why they want to. So, should access to higher education - or at least some degrees - be dictated by your ability to pay? But they won't be. That question is utterly misleading. The "cost" of your education will be linked to your ability to earn afterwards, not your ability to pay either before or during it. Of course we value education, and we should. But why should someone with less money subsidise someone from a well off background to go and earn more in the future? They get the grades for university by going to a public school, and low rate taxpayers help subsidise their place. That can't be right can it? I think the Shropshire Tenor has covered the main points I would make in response to this, ie 1) Those who benefit from increased earnings due to gaining a degree will pay more in taxation over the subsequent years 2) We all benefit, whether we're low or high income earners from an educated population/workforce. 3) Didn't Cameron, Clegg and plenty of others espousing the 'fairness' of this benefit from free university education themselves? 4) Without doubt the prospect of beginning your adult working life with tens of thousands of pounds around your neck will prove far more off putting for those from modest backgrounds than those from wealthy ones. I know we're not going to agree on this, so I'll leave it there!
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 17, 2011 23:55:21 GMT 1
Didn't you go to Uni? You seem pretty keen to pull up the drawbridge after you. My youngest is currently going through the Uni selection procedure and I find your comments about people going to Uni for 'a doss' insulting to her and her very hard working fellow students. However you try to spin the debt, it will put off people from lower income families - not only will they have the debt hanging over them for years, they will have all the other expense of setting up home etc. My experience of Uni was thats ome people were there to work and some people were there to waste time, drink and doss. Not sure how that could possibly be reflected on your youngest? One other thing I noticed was the people from reasonably well off backgrounds sometimes ended up in the worst situation because they did not qualify for additional support and they did not get much support from their parents. I see education and furthering yourself as massively important. Understanding the costs and benefits of that process is part of it. I saw it being abused, first hand, which is what influences me now. At least your youngest will be paying tax on the education they receive, not for what someone else receives. Surely that makes more sense in the longer run?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 0:13:42 GMT 1
I'm really quite shocked by some of your comments too Dave. I'd love to have heard your thoughts on the subject 15 years ago.... ;-)
I'm firmly in the 'nothing wrong with education for education's sake' camp.
And if anyone actually sees this as an attempt to make the tuition fees system fairer, rather than an attempt to get rid of the burden of university funding from those who pay top rate tax, with some minor stuff chucked in to placate the yellow side of the coallition, then they are missing the point entirely I feel.
Simple fact is that this will lead to hundreds of thousands of people from working and middle class family leaving University, finding a 'decent job' but still struggling to do things like buying property because they will have a significant three figure sum dropping out of their wage packed each month.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 18, 2011 8:28:15 GMT 1
I think part of the problem is the popularity of University these days (attendance wise). Never has further education been so popular. This of course leads to the "routinement" of a Degree as they are so popular and widespread.
The whole issue of Mr Bliar getting as many people in to further education was imo never thought through.
To explain - he was at the time striving for equality...this won't happen and hasn't happened because Oxford is still Oxford - Cambridge is still Cambridge and Eton is still Eton.
Degrees are now so common place that they are it seems degraded slightly as everyone seems to have one, yet the dividing line of Oxford etc is still there.
I believe Mr Bliar should have targeted these Unis and the enrollment policies in the first instance when addressing equality.
Further to that, there are more Unis offering more places than ever - people I know are attending Uni with grade Ds from college. Should there not be a quality line regarding acceptance ? Are we not in danger of producing lower level academics with low level degree qualifications at the expense of the taxpayer thus reducing the impact of having a degree ?
The issue then of course is who is going to pay for this increasing number of students, the tax payer, the student or the student in the future (wages).
My two are both at Uni, I pay all their accom charges so they don't leave with a mountain of debt. They will of course still leave with debts - it is only right that they are paid back by the students.
As with all things in life there has to be a modicum of balance, as with all things when politics gets involved there won't be. In short if the student wants to attend Uni he/she should be prepared to refund part of or the whole costs it's just finding the balance thats the hard bit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 8:45:56 GMT 1
This is a difficult one. Of course the UK benefits from having an educated population. However, further education shouldn't just relate to university degrees, there are plenty of other worthwhile courses\qualifications to consider. I think there should be some cost related to going to university, but the proposed fees are a little too steep. I think it's only fair that if you gain some sort of advantage from earning more on average from being a graduate, you should contribute more to society – essentially helping distribute wealth. Make no mistake, the new proposals are a graduate tax, essentially what the previous administration were suggesting, the only difference being you pay the graduate tax for up to 30yrs, rather than all your working life (which could be up to an extra 15yrs (or) longer). Simple fact is that this will lead to hundreds of thousands of people from working and middle class family leaving University, finding a 'decent job' but still struggling to do things like buying property because they will have a significant three figure sum dropping out of their wage packed each month. To pay back £100 a month for a student loan, you'd have to earn £34,333 a year (based on the 21,000 payment cap). However (assuming average UK salaries of £26k), you'd be earning roughly £550 (after tax) a month more than someone on an average salary, so you're net £450 up compared to the average worker – hardly a bad situation to be in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 8:46:05 GMT 1
I think part of the problem is the popularity of University these days (attendance wise). Never has further education been so popular. This of course leads to the "routinement" of a Degree as they are so popular and widespread. The whole issue of Mr Bliar getting as many people in to further education was imo never thought through. To explain - he was at the time striving for equality...this won't happen and hasn't happened because Oxford is still Oxford - Cambridge is still Cambridge and Eton is still Eton. Degrees are now so common place that they are it seems degraded slightly as everyone seems to have one, yet the dividing line of Oxford etc is still there. I believe Mr Bliar should have targeted these Unis and the enrollment policies in the first instance when addressing equality. Further to that, there are more Unis offering more places than ever - people I know are attending Uni with grade Ds from college. Should there not be a quality line regarding acceptance ? Are we not in danger of producing lower level academics with low level degree qualifications at the expense of the taxpayer thus reducing the impact of having a degree ? The issue then of course is who is going to pay for this increasing number of students, the tax payer, the student or the student in the future (wages). My two are both at Uni, I pay all their accom charges so they don't leave with a mountain of debt. They will of course still leave with debts - it is only right that they are paid back by the students. As with all things in life there has to be a modicum of balance, as with all things when politics gets involved there won't be. In short if the student wants to attend Uni he/she should be prepared to refund part of or the whole costs it's just finding the balance thats the hard bit That's a reasonable view of things Windy, although one I don't share. But crucially, you are equating Conservative policy with trying to reduce the number of students that go to University, which it is not. It has to get more people into University. The problem for them is that to continute to fund it in the same way as current may put more pressure on the highest taxpayers and given the way the way government has set about dismantling public services, that is simply not going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 8:57:00 GMT 1
This is a difficult one. Of course the UK benefits from having an educated population. However, further education shouldn't just relate to university degrees, there are plenty of other worthwhile courses\qualifications to consider. I think there should be some cost related to going to university, but the proposed fees are a little too steep. I think it's only fair that if you gain some sort of advantage from earning more on average from being a graduate, you should contribute more to society – essentially helping distribute wealth. Make no mistake, the new proposals are a graduate tax, essentially what the previous administration were suggesting, the only difference being you pay the graduate tax for up to 30yrs, rather than all your working life (which could be up to an extra 15yrs (or) longer). Simple fact is that this will lead to hundreds of thousands of people from working and middle class family leaving University, finding a 'decent job' but still struggling to do things like buying property because they will have a significant three figure sum dropping out of their wage packed each month. To pay back £100 a month for a student loan, you'd have to earn £34,333 a year (based on the 21,000 payment cap). However (assuming average UK salaries of £26k), you'd be earning roughly £550 (after tax) a month more than someone on an average salary, so you're net £450 up compared to the average worker – hardly a bad situation to be in? No, actually I do think it is a bad situation to be in. My view on this is that middle earners (and by that I include all who aspire to be middle earners) are the people who get crushed by these proposals. The unfairness of it all is something we will just have to get used to.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 18, 2011 9:19:25 GMT 1
I'm really quite shocked by some of your comments too Dave. I'd love to have heard your thoughts on the subject 15 years ago.... ;-) I'm firmly in the 'nothing wrong with education for education's sake' camp. Apologies to have shocked anyone. I am very prepared to change my mind on this one, but I still haven't heard enough to convince me. Fair enough with education for education sake: if the country can afford it. The previous system still heavily subsidised the well off; as they were the ones with the money to be able to go to the private schools and get the good grades to go to good universities. Isn't Oxbridge still 60% public school, all paid for by the taxpayer? I see this system as making them pay for their university, which I think is fair. I think the whole concept of "going" to university needs a radical overhaul. Are there more efficient ways of delivering the same standard of teaching / learning? "But going away helps people mature and grow up" is the response. True, but at £9,000 a year subsidy. These proposals only work in my eyes if they don't exclude people from lower income backgrounds, and I believe part of the fee the universities take will have to be used to support those students.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 18, 2011 9:22:50 GMT 1
Links in again to the effective burden of corporation tax on UK international businesses being reduced to 8%. The weight of the tax take must fall on ordinary people and small businesses because they are less likely to move their money around different countries to avoid tax. And, of course on any people reliant on public services because they will need to be cut. Let me backtrack slightly - if you are employed by one of those companies that will benefit from the reduction in the effective burden of corporation tax, the tax and national insurance you thought you paid out of your gross salary then think again - it is your employer's contribution to the Exchequer not yours.
The reduction in the weight of the manufacturing sector in favour of the service sector has been accompanied by a lower trend growth. However growth will still be played by the politicians as the way out of this: the cake is being cut up in a different way, but lets increase the size of the cake so that no one really notices.
But you start increasing the size of the cake by increasing the share of national income taken by profits - at the expense of the wage bill - so people do start noticing. They also notice that they have to wait longer to be able to go to an industrial tribunal. They also notice that their trade union ballots are habitually challenged in court.
And then your kid wants to go to university to escape this cycle and a private company with a guaranteed government fiefdom for some years lends money to them even though they have no income and no assets.
You couldn't make it up.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 18, 2011 10:16:18 GMT 1
One other point about the university sector: what about people who are not that academic?
Education for all should actually mean for all.
If every person in the UK had a certain amount of money to spend on education as they see fit, then those who want to do vocational courses, learn a trade, whatever would be well funded to do so, or people can choose university.
I can definitely see the point about people on middle incomes getting squeezed either way. The way I currently see it is of no benefit to my own children, quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by swissshrew on Mar 18, 2011 18:47:02 GMT 1
another football topic from matron ??
|
|