Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

I've seen your points, a lot of the time "may" is used and your views seem to be based on hope rather than expectation

Show me a financial analyst who can tell you with 100% certainty that an investment will increase in value.

[avfc89]

I've seen your points, a lot of the time "may" is used and your views seem to be based on hope rather than expectation

Show me a financial analyst who can tell you with 100% certainty that an investment will increase in value.

The evidence will be there for all to see in the next few years, we'll see if your theories are correct about the Economy.

[LJRM050389]

Put it this way. Would it be fair to bale out Liverpool's debt by taking money from Forest Green?

Which of course is a totally accurate analogy. Not

Tuition fees are more equitable and progressive than the old stystem which was highly regressive!

And who introduced the old system of tuition fees? It was Labour who killed off free higher education.

Those lovable socialists eh?

Higher Education shouldnt be free or paid for by general taxation. Its regressive and hits the poor hardest.

It should be free at the point of consumption with future earnings paying it back.

I dont want the CAP to rise, infact I want loans abolished and a graduate tax introduced instead! But loans is a more equitable way of paying than through general taxation!

[bickster]

Higher Education should be free and paid for by general taxation. Educating those capable of learning benefits not only the individual but the community as a whole. Most people who get educated to degree level earn more money during their lifetime than those that don't and in doing so pay for their education over their lifetime in taxes far more than they would if they hadn't had the benefit of that education. It pays for itself anyway

[TrentVilla]

Higher Education should be free and paid for by general taxation. Educating those capable of learning benefits not only the individual but the community as a whole. Most people who get educated to degree level earn more money during their lifetime than those that don't and in doing so pay for their education over their lifetime in taxes far more than they would if they hadn't had the benefit of that education. It pays for itself anyway

Totally agree Bicks.

The only tweak I think I'd make to that (and I admit I have no idea how it would be done) is to try and limit that to degree's which are worthwhile. There are so many utter bullshit degree's out there that I personally think are of no value and will not benefit the country or pay for themselves.

How you would manage the selection/evaluation process though I freely admit I have no chuffing idea.

[LJRM050389]

Graduates earn £400,000 more than non graduates through their life

They should pay for this from their future earnings!

There is still no strong evidence to support no. of graduates = better economy!

[kidlewis]

Higher Education should be free and paid for by general taxation. Educating those capable of learning benefits not only the individual but the community as a whole. Most people who get educated to degree level earn more money during their lifetime than those that don't and in doing so pay for their education over their lifetime in taxes far more than they would if they hadn't had the benefit of that education. It pays for itself anyway

Totally agree Bicks.

The only tweak I think I'd make to that (and I admit I have no idea how it would be done) is to try and limit that to degree's which are worthwhile. There are so many utter bullshit degree's out there that I personally think are of no value and will not benefit the country or pay for themselves.

How you would manage the selection/evaluation process though I freely admit I have no chuffing idea.

don't universities get government funding?

if so just limit the funding to poor students and just the core courses that we need to move forward.

[TrentVilla]

They should pay for this from their future earnings!

That was essentially the idea behind Labour's passing of fee's to students.

[TrentVilla]

if so just limit the funding to poor students and just the core courses that we need to move forward.

The problem with that is that it isn't really very fair.

If we accept the conclusion that those who are degree educated will in their life time pay more in tax, then why should they or their children be punished by being forced to then effectively pay more tax to cover their education.

That to me seems just as unfair as a system that limits university education to those from wealthy backgrounds.

No easy solution on this one.

[bickster]

Graduates earn £400,000 more than non graduates through their life

They should pay for this from their future earnings!

There is still no strong evidence to support no. of graduates = better economy!

They do, they pay more in tax doh! on £400,000 that would be like an extra £125,000 to the exchequer minimum. Why the **** should they pay twice for being clever? Talk about punishing those that want to succeed, its hardly offering an incentive is it.

Trent I agree, but they easy way to do this would be to revert back to the old system and abandon this ridiculous concept of calling every seat of learning a University, go back to having Universities, Polytechnics, Teacher training colleges. There are too many people going to University, it completely devalues the education people recieve. Higher Education needs to be more elitist, this stupid concept of making it non elitist devalues everything

[TrentVilla]

I'm inclined to agree with you I think Bicks, even though I'm normally fairly left of centre in my political leanings and such a policy is perhaps more likely to come from the Torries. I do though always maintain I always approach issues on their merits rather than from a staunch party political position.

[LJRM050389]

And of course this neo classical economics has seen increases inequality from both Tory and Labour Gvts. So forgive me not buying the view that the general taxation method will trickle down to everyone, as it doesnt!

I support the NUS proposal

Link

[bickster]

It would actually be reversing a policy started by the Witch, though her motives were similar to her reasoning behind closing the pits

[kidlewis]

And of course this neo classical economics has seen increases inequality from both Tory and Labour Gvts. So forgive me not buying the view that the general taxation method will trickle down to everyone, as it doesnt!

I support the NUS proposal

Link

this could work because it would mean universitites would scale back degrees where students don't go into a job directly.

take media degrees. Heavily over subscribed, a lot of people who get that degree end up not in the media in any format but doing years of work in admin centers and other fairly average paid jobs that they would have got if they didn't go to Uni.

I think their proposal would reduce this, and also reduce the number of people going to university, which is a good thing.

[TrentVilla]

Will have to read up on it more but I think there is some logic to that proposal on the face of it.

[tonyh29]

her motives were similar to her reasoning behind closing the pits

is that the same pits that were already closing or ear marked to be closed by the previous government ?

[peterms]

And of course this neo classical economics has seen increases inequality from both Tory and Labour Gvts. So forgive me not buying the view that the general taxation method will trickle down to everyone, as it doesnt!

I support the NUS proposal

Link

this could work because it would mean universitites would scale back degrees where students don't go into a job directly.

take media degrees. Heavily over subscribed, a lot of people who get that degree end up not in the media in any format but doing years of work in admin centers and other fairly average paid jobs that they would have got if they didn't go to Uni.

I think their proposal would reduce this, and also reduce the number of people going to university, which is a good thing.

We seem a bit confused about this.

Going to uni is seen as a good thing, which is why Thatch doubled the number of university students by decreeing that henceforth, East Cheltenham College of Macrame would be known as Whizzo University of the Arts. And so on, across the entire UK.

It's also seen as an engine of economic development, which is why rapidly developing third world countries place such a premium on university education.

But degrees in themselves don't create economic growth, or necessarily confer advantage.

So if we're going to look for a system which recognises where people's life histories, of whatever sort, have placed them in a position to gain economic advantage, let's tax them accordingly, so they can put back something relative to what they take out. If they get educated for a few years and miss out on income and the spending that goes with that, their choice.

But let's not mess about with proxies for assessing economic advantage, like taxing education. Let's make it a lot simpler, by just taxing what people manage to earn. It could be a sort of tax on income. I know! Let's call it "income tax"!

[kidlewis]

And of course this neo classical economics has seen increases inequality from both Tory and Labour Gvts. So forgive me not buying the view that the general taxation method will trickle down to everyone, as it doesnt!

I support the NUS proposal

Link

this could work because it would mean universitites would scale back degrees where students don't go into a job directly.

take media degrees. Heavily over subscribed, a lot of people who get that degree end up not in the media in any format but doing years of work in admin centers and other fairly average paid jobs that they would have got if they didn't go to Uni.

I think their proposal would reduce this, and also reduce the number of people going to university, which is a good thing.

We seem a bit confused about this.

Going to uni is seen as a good thing, which is why Thatch doubled the number of university students by decreeing that henceforth, East Cheltenham College of Macrame would be known as Whizzo University of the Arts. And so on, across the entire UK.

It's also seen as an engine of economic development, which is why rapidly developing third world countries place such a premium on university education.

But degrees in themselves don't create economic growth, or necessarily confer advantage.

So if we're going to look for a system which recognises where people's life histories, of whatever sort, have placed them in a position to gain economic advantage, let's tax them accordingly, so they can put back something relative to what they take out. If they get educated for a few years and miss out on income and the spending that goes with that, their choice.

But let's not mess about with proxies for assessing economic advantage, like taxing education. Let's make it a lot simpler, by just taxing what people manage to earn. It could be a sort of tax on income. I know! Let's call it "income tax"!

I certainly think degrees now don't really get you ahead of the field in many industries anymore.

The Arts for example being one. Hard work and dedication will get you way further than going to Uni would, you only need to look at the biggest names in UK music to see that. Rascal, even Coldplay were formed at Uni. I am not sure if they all ended up finishing their degrees and don't think any of them did anything music related.

NuLab wanted 50% of all secondary kids to go to Uni. Pointless stat and pointless idea.

the idea of Uni should still be elitist but through educational achievements passed and not held back by an individuals personal finances.

If you are clever enough to get good A-Levels (by good I mean C and above) then you should generally get into a place somewhere in your chosen subject, whether rich or poor.

[LJRM050389]

And so it begins...

Students are 'burden on the taxpayer' says David Willetts

I know the new NUS president and I can tell you now that he will lead a national strike if this goes ahead!

[leviramsey]

Higher Education should be free and paid for by general taxation. Educating those capable of learning benefits not only the individual but the community as a whole. Most people who get educated to degree level earn more money during their lifetime than those that don't and in doing so pay for their education over their lifetime in taxes far more than they would if they hadn't had the benefit of that education. It pays for itself anyway

Totally agree Bicks.

The only tweak I think I'd make to that (and I admit I have no idea how it would be done) is to try and limit that to degree's which are worthwhile. There are so many utter bullshit degree's out there that I personally think are of no value and will not benefit the country or pay for themselves.

How you would manage the selection/evaluation process though I freely admit I have no chuffing idea.

That's the great thing about markets... the only judge of whether a degree is bullshit (and thus not worth paying for) is the person who will derive the benefit from having a degree.

Why should the working classes pay for the education of the middle class?

If higher education is something that dramatically improves future earning power than it's eminently justifiable for the one who receives the benefit to be the one who pays for it (borrowing money if necessary). And it's not like the wealthy wouldn't be borrowing to fund education: if the base return on the investment exceeds the interest rate on the loan, then you're a fool not to borrow to fund the investment. Hell, one of the worst financial decisions I ever made was to pay for university with cash from my [since-depleted] trust fund as opposed to borrowing every cent I could to finance it. I probably would have treated it a bit more seriously, too, and not gotten kicked out with something like a 1.3 GPA...