"Givers and takers"? Some poorly paid worker (hospital cleaner, fruit picker) is a taker, but someone living on inherited wealth and doing nothing useful for society is a giver?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tories have lost the vote of the young generation.
- Thread starter Churchlawtonblue
- Start date
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,380
No, I'm saying that financially, someone on £15k a year is not "paying for your degree," which was the argument made, because they're not actually making a net contribution to taxation in the first place. I was arguing against the claim that if university education was funded from taxation, degrees would be being subsidized by people earning minimum wage who could never hope to get one. If you're going to make that individualistic argument, you need to follow it to its logical conclusion."Givers and takers"? Some poorly paid worker (hospital cleaner, fruit picker) is a taker, but someone living on inherited wealth and doing nothing useful for society is a giver?
Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,504
Well you're daft as well then. Bitter and daft.
'Bitter' because I am wiling to pay taxes for services that I have not used but others benefit from?
I'd pay more tax for a better health service, free university education for all, roads with potholes, more social workers and improved care for the elderly and disabled.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
'Bitter' because I am wiling to pay taxes for services that I have not used but others benefit from?
I'd pay more tax for a better health service, free university education for all, roads with potholes, more social workers and improved care for the elderly and disabled.
Agreed..... Id go with that as well
all over the papers like a pissing puppy to quote The Thick Of It lol !! What they have done is effectively give more students a university education at the tax payers expense, put the burden on future generations of tax payers to pay for it ( something Labour was condemned for doing ) whilst at the same time hamstringing universities from raising revenues from students at a time when their foreign student numbers are falling so they too will have to come to the tax payer for increased funding.
i say the first bit because what they are doing as well as freezing the fees is raising the payback threshold. What that does is mean graduates will be paying back later but in the meantime the loans will just accrue more interest - from the private Student Loan Co. Putting it back will also mean that the amount that goes unpaid by the graduate when the loan is written off is a greater capital sum plus extra interest. That will be picked up in years to come by the tax payers of the future... the Student Loan Co board must be pissing themselves tonight.
You seriously couldn't make this shit up the tories truly are thick as fuck!! We some of the finest education establishments in the world and wealthy foreign students are falling over themselves to come study for them. Yet in a bid to appease the knuckle draggers the tories are hell bent on turning these people away limiting the amount that comes in. Despite the fact that they have been told time and time again not to count student and countless reports saying that most foreign students come in get educated and clear off. It beggers belief what is going on surely we should be bending over backwards to get more foreign students so that they can grow our economy because we are effectively exporting something. Then there is the argument that some of these students could be the talent we need for our economy and would want them to stay.
You just have to listen to Maybot this morning as I did trying to defend her stands trying to pit the young people against each other. With phrases like why should the electrician pay for the person across the street to get a better job. Well that's because that person might be the doctors who saves his life delivers his first child etc.. Then there's the fact that that doctor will pay back more in taxes over their lifetime than the electrician.
PragueBlue
Well-Known Member
Agreed..... Id go with that as well
Most wouldn't though I suspect.
Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,504
Most wouldn't though I suspect.
Indeed. It has been the case since Thatcher's era of self interest, that we should expect world class public services but not pay the amount of tax required to fund them.
'Bitter' because I am wiling to pay taxes for services that I have not used but others benefit from?
I'd pay more tax for a better health service, free university education for all, roads with potholes, more social workers and improved care for the elderly and disabled.
You are saying you are prepared to pay for others to have a free university education but you already are, most students will never pay off their student debt because it is wiped off after a certain time. The taxpayer will foot this bill and it will cost billions.
I went to university and got in just before the fees rose (£3k a year) so my debt is much less, I have no problem paying for my degree and wouldn't again. It has led to a job where I pay £110 a month for my 'debt' but then I pay this amount because I am deemed to be able to afford it.
May is changing the threshold which means the amount slides and the interest is less so that means I will pay a lot less a month than I do now. It will probably mean that I will never pay off my debt because the amount is so small it will take decades. For those who take on the full £9k a year, it sounds a lot but the sliding scale and longer repayment period afforded to this plan means even I will pay more despite having a fee debt that is less.
Any student who goes to university now and tells you they have this massive debt and can't afford to do anything is lying and shouldn't be at university because maths and logic clearly is not their strong point.
Saying fees should be free is pointless because at no point is a student disadvantaged or having to pay an amount that is not proportional to their earnings. If they earn nothing, they pay nothing... It would take now around the average UK salary just to start paying anything at all... I don't see the problem.
Make fees free and suddenly you have a black hole of £20bn+ to cover, an amount which funnily enough we will probably be covering anyway!
hilts
Well-Known Member
Indeed. It has been the case since Thatcher's era of self interest, that we should expect world class public services but not pay the amount of tax required to fund them.
Simple people like simple ideas. Simple people tend to vote labour.
Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,504
Simple people like simple ideas. Simple people tend to vote labour.
I'm simple because of what I posted?
I'll start following your posts. Maybe I will become enlightened. Of course, not enlightened in the way Marx envisaged it to be. More likely a form of 'enlightenment' consistent with the Scottish Enlightenment period (David Hume et al), in which improvement and virtue were key. I look forward to it.