Tories have lost the vote of the young generation.

Chippy_boy said:
The Tories' biggest problem is not the policies, but their abysmal presentation of them.

What percentage of young people go to university? About 40% at the moment. 60% do not.

Do you think it's right that those who do not go, who on average will end up with lower paid jobs, should pay through taxation for the others who do go? Do you think that is fair on those who cannot go, or who don't want to?

It clearly isn't. The principle that those who will directly benefit, should pay something towards the cost, is fair and sensible. There is a huge question mark over the numbers and I think the earnings threshold should be more like £35,000 not £21,000 (£25k proposed). And the interest rate should be 0% or 1% perhaps, not the offensive 6%. But the principle is right.

The Tories should be appealing to the 60% who do not go to university: "If you want to pay more tax, so that other people can benefit, vote Corbyn".
Click to expand...
What utter bollocks. So we should only pay for things that directly benefit us? I've never used any of the following in the last decade:
The police
The fire brigade
The ambulance service
A hospital
But I'm very happy to have my wages taxed so that these services are universally available. And I'd happily pay for our youth to go to University. It won't directly benefit me. It will benefit them. Loving the Tories in full flap mode. Constantly shooting themselves in their self-righteous feet. What goes around comes around. Shower of self-serving wankers.
 
hilts said:
How can that be true when the argument for free uni is that an educated society helps us all and they pay more tax which cover their education. If most never pay it back then maybe just maybe too many are going and the value for money isn't there. I don't agree with the way it's done it certainly needs tweaking but should everyone who fancies it get 30k of education plus no fucking way.

You either believe those that benefit from society give back or you don't.

If someone says here's some cash to get you started if it helps you financially pay it us back if not no problem. That's not the worst life deal you will be offered. Argue about the detail not the principal.
Click to expand...
Not really, because that argument is based on the assumption that unless something has a financial value, it has no value to society. Where would you stand on the argument that certain university degrees may have a value despite not having great financial reward? Someone learning ancient history might struggle to get a high-paying job that allows them to pay off the tuition costs, but that doesn't mean that studying history is of no value to society.

Presumably the logical conclusion of your argument is that the government should never write-off student debt and students should be forced to pay it back regardless of whether they can afford it, which is the case with normal loans (although of course normal loans can be written off through bankruptcy, which student loans can't).

There are a couple of principals that can be argued. The first is that people shouldn't pay for education. And plenty of countries do this. But obviously you can only take this argument so far, because should the government then fund masters degrees or PhDs for anyone who wants them? I accept that there's a balance that needs to be made between our ability to fund education and our need for educated graduates as a country. I think that balance has very quickly and unreasonably shifted towards the individual in recent years. I graduated from university 12 years ago. In that time, tuition fees were introduced, then increased from around £1000 to a maximum of about £3000, and then very quickly increased to a maximum of over £9000, which 76% of universities charge. And what has this 900% increase in 12 years paid for?
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Not really, because that argument is based on the assumption that unless something has a financial value, it has no value to society. Where would you stand on the argument that certain university degrees may have a value despite not having great financial reward? Someone learning ancient history might struggle to get a high-paying job that allows them to pay off the tuition costs, but that doesn't mean that studying history is of no value to society.

Presumably the logical conclusion of your argument is that the government should never write-off student debt and students should be forced to pay it back regardless of whether they can afford it, which is the case with normal loans (although of course normal loans can be written off through bankruptcy, which student loans can't).

There are a couple of principals that can be argued. The first is that people shouldn't pay for education. And plenty of countries do this. But obviously you can only take this argument so far, because should the government then fund masters degrees or PhDs for anyone who wants them? I accept that there's a balance that needs to be made between our ability to fund education and our need for educated graduates as a country. I think that balance has very quickly and unreasonably shifted towards the individual in recent years. I graduated from university 12 years ago. In that time, tuition fees were introduced, then increased from around £1000 to a maximum of about £3000, and then very quickly increased to a maximum of over £9000, which 76% of universities charge. And what has this 900% increase in 12 years paid for?
Click to expand...


How would ancient history at a cost of say 50 grand enrich me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.