And the cuts just keep on coming !!

[localzuk]

ofcourse there are those in the middle who are squeezed by meeting the cost of higher fees, but the wealth has to be there in some form, whether it's in pension pots, cash savings, housing equity. Such savings can't exist without debt somewhere else in the system. some people may not be all that cash rich but have substantial equity because they live in that 'expensive' area. so you could argue it's a case of either make tough financial choices or seek an alternative to the choice of higher education. But the increasingly favoured option, which i'm saying doesn't have much mileage left, is to foist all the burden of the debt onto future income earning capacity of the graduates-to-be....further government subsidy probably has even less mileage.

 

Granted not all these stores of wealth are as easy to access as having significant cash sums on deposit in a bank, but then it's all about making tough choices [re the sacrifices i mentioned earlier] rather than increasing subsidies from government.

 

So people should have to choose between giving their child a good chance at a future, or their own lives which they've spent 30 years struggling for?

 

So, all those middle class people should sell their houses, give up their pensions and live in 1 bedroom flats? What if they live in an expensive area because that's where their job is? You can't just move jobs with no issue...

 

What happened to 'education for all who want it'? Or should it be 'education to those who can afford it'?

 

My parents 'wealth' is tied up in their home. They have to live where they do, as that's where the work is, and there aren't cheaper houses. So what do you propose? They should've gone and lived in a tent?

 

The value of people getting degrees is their future earning, and therefore tax, potential. The more educated our work force, the more income they make and the more income the government makes, which can pay for the education of the next generation.

 

What we've got now is 'we want people to be educated, but because of a series of screwups by various governments, you'll have to pay for it youselves, and then when you're earning plenty we'll tax you even more than ever'.

 

How is that fair?

[torledo]

 

What we've got now is 'we want people to be educated, but because of a series of screwups by various governments, you'll have to pay for it youselves, and then when you're earning plenty we'll tax you even more than ever'.

 

How is that fair?

 

government, you could argue, is always picking winners and losers via it's policies. If you want to provide free HE education for all who want it, then where are you going to see the axe fall in other places ? if you want to lower the bar as far as who qualifies for state help, again that could indicate that spending cuts increase elsewhere.

 

That's if government even believes it wants to have such a high rate of HE paritcipation. Just as taxes can be a way of influencing behaviour, so can having to meet the cost of things like HE. Is that fair ? ofcourse not. But your aware that there are limited pots of funding aswell as finite resources.

Edited November 26, 2010 by torledo

[Dos_Box]

I'm against a Party going back on their pledge....

 

If Labour did the same, then I would be just as angry with them. In fact, probably worse, for they would've let down their core vote.

 

 

 

I would respectfully suggest that that is a rather simplistic view of things?

 

Unless you have proper evidence that that is the case....then it remains an unknown, and therefore is just conjecture and hearsay. Regardless of where the leaders come from, they have an ethos to look after ALL the voters....not just the rich ones...or "toffs" as you so quaintly put it!

 

Bank bonuses unbound | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

Indeed!

 

I was replying to Mattx's use fo the word 'Toffs', as for a link to the Guardian I don't thinlk you could ever find a more left leaning paper if you tried (ok, you've got the Socilaist Worker and Morning Star to choose from as well). I't like someone quoting the Daily Mail and citing it as being impartial.

[mattx]

Education should be free - it's that simple. Time shows that proper education slowly reduces poverty etc which means we all enjoy a better standard of life. We are all equal and everyone has the right to an education - not just the rich pratts of this world. I don't care who is in government - fund it, and if that means taxing the rich knobs even more then do it.

The likes of cable and clegg clearly did not benifit from their education as they made stupid pledges they knew they could not keep - stupid idiots.

[localzuk]

I was replying to Mattx's use fo the word 'Toffs', as for a link to the Guardian I don't thinlk you could ever find a more left leaning paper if you tried (ok, you've got the Socilaist Worker and Morning Star to choose from as well). I't like someone quoting the Daily Mail and citing it as being impartial.

 

So, are you saying that the things that the guardian highlight aren't happening then?

[triggmiester]

and how many of you on here voted conservative??????

 

Quick show of hands please

[localzuk]

and how many of you on here voted conservative??????

 

Quick show of hands please

 

Voted Lib Dem here, and am disappointed with their behaviour on this issue, but they are generally acting as a bit of balance to the tories.

[Roberto]

indeed. this process is baked in.

 

but i do question how much scope there is to load more debt onto students, as a solution from politicians.

 

Well this isn't a choice between "load it onto students" and "don't load it on to students". If education was "free" at point of delivery, that means it's being paid for by the taxpayer which ultimately includes the students themselves. I'm not saying I like it, I'm not suggesting it's fair, but it might well be the 'least worst' answer.

[maniac]

Education should be free - it's that simple. Time shows that proper education slowly reduces poverty etc which means we all enjoy a better standard of life. We are all equal and everyone has the right to an education - not just the rich pratts of this world. I don't care who is in government - fund it, and if that means taxing the rich knobs even more then do it.

The likes of cable and clegg clearly did not benifit from their education as they made stupid pledges they knew they could not keep - stupid idiots.

 

Tax the rich to much then they tend to jump ship and move abroad, so you then lose your revenue stream from their taxes. They also tend to take their businesses with them meaning the country loses out on employment created by them, taxes paid by them etc. etc. it's a very fine balancing act.

 

Good example of what happens when you tax the rich is what happened to the state of new Jersey in America N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart | NJ.com

 

Mike.

[torledo]

The value of people getting degrees is their future earning, and therefore tax, potential. The more educated our work force, the more income they make and the more income the government makes, which can pay for the education of the next generation.

 

What we've got now is 'we want people to be educated, but because of a series of screwups by various governments, you'll have to pay for it youselves, and then when you're earning plenty we'll tax you even more than ever'.

 

 

just to add, isn't that what's going to happen with the 'no upfront fees' part of the new system. therefore value fees will equal repayments kicking in once earnings start to rise above the threshold

[Guest Guest]

Don't send your kids to Uni then, simples. I have to echo Hightower here, not every job needs a degree, infact the vast majority don't need one but as every tom, dick and harry goes to uni now they seem to ask for them when there is simply no need for them. Our last headteacher didn't have a degree, so why would you need a degree to be a NM? The quicker this country gets out of the mindset of "you MUST have a degree to get a job" the better.

 

The majority of people I know who have got degrees are on a far lower wage than the people who left school and got a job. To be more specific the vast majority of people I know who have degrees work in Tescos. University was just an excuse for a 3year party.

 

Degrees have been so devalued now that something has to be done. Surerly its better to keep degrees for the elite (in terms of intelligence) and get everyone else training in things which are useful to the country rather than a degree in David Beckham, or archaeology simply for the sake of it.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Guest

[teejay]

So, are you saying that the things that the guardian highlight aren't happening then?

 

No, but they have a certain 'spin' on it.

If we start raising taxes excessively on the banking sector, how do you think they will reclaim the lost profit? Quite simply, from us in higher interest rates on loans, even lower rates on saving and higher bank charges.

Also, I say bring on massive bank bonuses, they're currently taxed at 51% when over £150,000 and that's not going to change any time soon.

[Roberto]

Perhaps they only made these 'pledges' because they knew that there was no way they were going to win. Once they found themselves in a coalition they were suddenly placed in the position of going 'Er..umm.' When they found out there were very hard choices to make. It is swings and roundabouts.

 

There's a lot to be said for that. I'm sure anyone here who has been promoted from a "technician" role to a "managerial" role will agree that there's a very big difference between being able to make suggestions freely and letting others decide whether or not to do them and actually being the person responsible yourself.

[localzuk]

just to add, isn't that what's going to happen with the 'no upfront fees' part of the new system. therefore value fees will equal repayments kicking in once earnings start to rise above the threshold

 

Not particularly, as it means that the GDP increasing effect of them getting a degree, is being punished, rather than rewarded. The more high earners there are, the more investment potential, and therefore the more jobs in general. So, overall, the cost of education should be spread across the entire population, not just those actually being educated.

[torledo]

Well this isn't a choice between "load it onto students" and "don't load it on to students". If education was "free" at point of delivery, that means it's being paid for by the taxpayer which ultimately includes the students themselves. I'm not saying I like it, I'm not suggesting it's fair, but it might well be the 'least worst' answer.

 

ah, but then we start getting into the old argument about what the taxpayer as a whole will tolerate as far as 'free at the point of delivery'. NHS, yes. Three years of partying and media and communication degrees [full on daily wail mode], probably not.

 

so what we're seeing really is a democratic outcome. There will be some help for low income families [probably not enough], subsidy of key degree courses, plus a repayment method which doesn't require upfront payment of fees in full or part.

maybe this is the least worst outcome.

[aerospacemango]

Tax the rich to much then they tend to jump ship and move abroad, so you then lose your revenue stream from their taxes. They also tend to take their businesses with them meaning the country loses out on employment created by them, taxes paid by them etc. etc. it's a very fine balancing act.

 

Good example of what happens when you tax the rich is what happened to the state of new Jersey in America N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart | NJ.com

 

Mike.

 

Oh of course! That old chestnut!

 

The rich, once you start taxing them properly, will all b*gg*r off to another country! That one is ALWAYS trotted out!

 

Yep, and then they get something like 90 days a year to spend in this country before tax kicks in....All happened in the 70's too!

 

I'm not talking about taxing them until they squeak. They WOULD be counter-productive, but their bonuses should be heavily taxed, and those earniing over £1 000 000 a year should be more heavily taxed (I'm looking at you footballers there!!!).

[torledo]

the cost of education should be spread across the entire population, not just those actually being educated.

 

i can't see any party being able to put that on a manifesto, and able to sell it. except to students ofcourse.

[buzzard]

IMHO I think people should pay for their degree, it normally produces a better paid job so you recoup your outlay. I have 4 kids and in all honesty I'm not saving anything for them to go in to FE. Since turning 16 I've never had a handout (parents or state) and made my own way in the world, I do have a degree for what it's worth. I did vote conservative and I'm not ashamed to admit it, I'm sure they can do a better job working with the Lib Dems then labour have done, it's about time people started working together for the greater good of the country rather than bashing the country and how it's "gone to the dogs" If we all worked as hard as people in some of the developing countries we'd be in a much better position.

[localzuk]

i can't see any party being able to put that on a manifesto, and able to sell it. except to students ofcourse.

 

Its a shame isn't it, that people don't look at an issue end to end before making up their minds. ie. the knock on effects to the economy of having people with higher education levels. Being educated isn't just a selfish endeavour leading to higher pay cheques for that individual.

[Hightower]

Surely people can only earn higher wages when we have the businesses in this country that can pay the higher wages. Whether I got a D- in maths, or a masters, the ability to earn that higher wage is directly affected by whether there is someone to employ me that can afford that higher wage.

[teejay]

and how many of you on here voted conservative??????

 

Quick show of hands please

 

Yep :-)

btw, I'm from a working class background, not some Eaton Boy tosser as some on here believe you have to be to ;-)

[localzuk]

Surely people can only earn higher wages when we have the businesses in this country that can pay the higher wages. Whether I got a D- in maths, or a masters, the ability to earn that higher wage is directly affected by whether there is someone to employ me that can afford that higher wage.

 

Who is it that runs those businesses? If someone wishes to invest in this country and set up a business, there are a number of things they'll look for - location, taxation, and the people they'd employ. If they see that the quality of education is poor, or there are a lack of graduates, they won't come here. Once they've set up, those graduates they're employing will move up and in the future some will become the next generation of investors.

[Hightower]

Yep :-)

btw, I'm from a working class background, not some Eaton Boy tosser as some on here believe you have to be to ;-)

 

Ditto. My family has a long history of coal mining, and have always ALWAYS voted labour..... until the last election. 13 years of labour has destroyed this country in my eyes, and I'm not saying the tories are going to do everything right, but I believe they are the best ones to return us to the greatness we once were.

 

You simply cannot keep spending when the money is not there. If I did that, I'd be in arrears on my mortgage and out on the street.

[Hightower]

Who is it that runs those businesses? If someone wishes to invest in this country and set up a business, there are a number of things they'll look for - location, taxation, and the people they'd employ. If they see that the quality of education is poor, or there are a lack of graduates, they won't come here. Once they've set up, those graduates they're employing will move up and in the future some will become the next generation of investors.

 

Not the case at all. I know plenty of money making local businesses, that were started by local people, with 'no education', and now employ local people who are 'non-educated' on good wages. A degree isn't needed for all walks of life. A degree isn't even needed for most walks of life. Relevant training for the job at hand is, but not a degree.

[buzzard]

I have to say the most lazy and clueless people I have worked with in IT all came through the education mill, no common sense and one even asked me how you work out an average, when I asked which average, he just said "are there more then 1?" As said earlier I do have a degree but this was done later in life and it never goes on my CV (not IT Related). It does amaze me when interviewing for jobs the amout of really good "on paper" people there are, up until you ask them a really simple question under interview and they don't have a clue or common sense, and these people have 1st class degrees... as a consequence having a degree in my eyes adds no weight to any application that passes by me, which is ashame to those who really work hard to get them and those who really are good enough to get a 1st