"student debt"
I know this is going massively off-topic but I like this board so I'm hoping someone can explain this to me.

A debt is a sum of money that you borrow from someone, at an agreed rate of interest, for an agreed term, and have to repay. If you do not repay bailiffs may well turn up at your door to repossess your belongings, and failing that you may be taken to court where a judge may declare you bankrupt in order to settle the dispute.

A student loan is repaid only when a person can afford to, as a percentage of their income. Most students will end up paying only half the amount they initially "borrowed" for their tuition fees. This "debt" will not count against them if they want to borrow from a bank, for example in order to get a mortgage. To all intents and purposes it is an extra 10% on their tax bill for a limited period of time while on average their salaries are likely to have been raised by more than that as a result of their having a degree.

As far as I can see that's still free money. Can someone explain to me what the fucking problem is?
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:14, 65 replies)

The problem seems to be that you have as much a grasp on finances as a child with down's syndrome
I'd be surprised if you're left alone with proper cutlery.
( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:20, closed)

I'm being serious here
If you'd like to point out where I'm wrong instead of tastelessly insulting me I'll gladly listen.
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:27, closed)

yes, that wasn't very nice, was it?
(TheFlyingOnion. looking forward to, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:31, closed)

Ha!
You shoild mix it up a bit Rory, this isn't even good cuntery, it's just dullness
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:41, closed)

You really are a tedious cunt.
(And your grasp of the written word is somewhat lacking)
( TheMattInAHat has a particular... odour..., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:46, closed)

(Cheers)

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:30, closed)

Please do not feed the troll.
They feed on attention, be it positive or negative. Much like an odious toddler in the middle of a temper tantrum, they are best ignored.
( jim_bob can herd cats., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:53, closed)

Thanks for that.

( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:32, closed)

You're quite welcome.

( jim_bob can herd cats., Fri 12 Nov 2010, 8:49, closed)

it's only this generation it's happened to.
It's still being required to pay for your education. Schools are free because the education they give people enables them to get jobs doing useful things later in life. The taxes they pay, from the wages they earn, then pay for the next generation to learn. That's been the system for a very long time and still applies in schools. It used to apply to universities as well and the generation that is now in government benefited from it. Yet now it's considered that being taxed isn't enough to do that, and instead, someone should pay for the privilege of learning how to do a job that provides useful services in the future.

It should be the other way around! People learn for free and then pay the next generation to do so. Otherwise the baby boomers have gotten off scot fucking free, without any extra debt, cheap house prices and jobs for life. This generation is getting fucked in the arse by the ones that had it all, and that's why it's fucking wrong.
(cypherspace is not a toaster, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:44, closed)

Have you looked on the UCAS website recently?
A big chunk of the degrees out there really aren't preparing people for any decent employment opportunities, so there is little to no economic return for those students.
( Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:50, closed)

Agreed
I'm all for getting rid of perhaps half, or more, of the university courses that exist, and going back to on-the-job training and apprenticeships. Sorry, I didn't add the paragraph I was going to, which was blaming Blair for all of this. It was his 50% target of school-leavers going to university that's fucked the uni finances system.
(cypherspace is not a toaster, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:55, closed)

So what you're saying is...
Waahh waaahh waahhhh, it's not fair, I wanna free education paid for by everyone else while I get pissed and pretend to study for my degree in tourism or whatever other banal, useless, irrelevant course?

Perhaps you mean that all the tax payers who earn less than degree qualified ex students should get a rebate or lump sum payment for the free university they didn't attend, after all it's not fair that they should pay for it if they don't use it is it?

News fucking flash, you've already had a free compulsory education, if you don't fucking like paying for your *OPTIONAL* *VOLUNTARY* further education could I suggest you fuck off to another country where they give it away for free.

What? You can't think of any other country where students don't have to pay? No, neither can I...
(ceeej, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 8:00, closed)

Off the top of my head I can think of Scotland (if you're Scottish, hooray for Scottish MPs voting on English and Welsh tuition fees they then cop out of) and Finland. Furthermore, if you don't have people doing degrees in subjects where a degree is *required* rather than optional due to costs, this costs the country more in a lack of capable scientists, teachers, engineers etc. The opportunity cost of cutting the number of people studying hard degrees is fewer educators for the next generation, loss of technical businesses in Britain, and a loss in international research position. Britain has a small percentage of the world's population but produces a much greater percentage of research.
( Labmonkey last thought about having another coffee on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 10:37, closed)

Oops, forgot about Scotland, didn't know about Finland
I reckon if we dumped all the bullshit degree courses (tourism, surf science etc..) and ploughed the money into the ones that matter (engineering, sciences, medicine etc..) then we could create a very useful generation of graduates.

Unfortunately, we've become blinded and apparently believe that quantity is more important than quality so it doesn't matter *what* your degree is for, it just matters that you have one. Thus, all the crappy degrees that are almost given away on cereal boxes are sucking the funding out of ones that might do some good. Recent graduates I know personally make me sick, they have little or no interest in the subjects they chose.

I've no problem paying for a degree for someone who makes a positive contribution to the public sector or community, indeed, I believe that every graduate who can should get their fees paid for working in the public sector, a chunk paid off per month or quarter, whatever. If they choose to work in the private sector then they can pay their own fees or persuade their employer to pay them. Either way, it's a win for the taxpayer.

Rant at least clarified I hope.
(ceeej, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 20:48, closed)

Wales doesn't have tuition fees
but you have to be living in Wales and at a Welsh Uni. Check your facts.
(TheFlyingOnion. looking forward to, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 9:48, closed)

" it's not fair that they should pay for it if they don't use it is it?"
Fucking hell, you're really raising the bar on conspicuous stupidity here. Or do you think I can apply for a rebate on the grounds of never having been to hospital, not driving on the roads, or not drawing a state pension?

You don't pay for students' tuition fees. You pay your tax, at which point, it is no longer your money - so stop fucking whining about it.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 18:24, closed)

On the other hand,
why should I pay my taxes so wasters in shitty jobs should get tax credits and pay less tax than me because they never bothered to pay attention at school and have 2 Es at GCSE and couldn't be arsed to better themselves by getting a degree?

No I don't actually think that, and while I agree that the HE sector needs radical reform to halt the trend in binmen needing degrees in Waste Management studies, the objective of the system in giving bright kids increased knowledge in a variety of subjects to enable them to enrich the country's economy is fundamentally sound.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 21:14, closed)

I'm a physics graduate
you presumptuous moron.

If you read the second of my replies, I'm all for getting rid of the pointless courses and returning to on-the-job training. Tour managers do not need a fucking degree. But the fact is that the employer used to pay for that stuff because they thought it was important to have employees that knew what they were doing. Similarly the Government used to pay for students to learn because it was important to have people who knew things for the sake of the country.

Now the businesses think that the training should be paid for by the future employees - and I think that's wrong. The Government thinks the learning should be paid for by the learners - and I think that's wrong, especially when they all had the benefits of a free education.

As for my *optional* *voluntary* education, I'm more than prepared to pay a higher tax bracket as a result of my education, which will then pay for the education of the next generation. And I'm happy to have the tax rate raised for that.

I just think the idea of putting students tens of thousands of pounds into debt at the beginning of their careers is one of the stupidest and most unfair things I've ever heard, and is giving the current generation a massive, massive disadvantage compared to the ones that have come before them.

Your principles are different, that's fine. Don't tell me what mine should be.
(cypherspace is not a toaster, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 12:05, closed)

lols
just read *your* other reply and actually we probably agree on many things.
(cypherspace is not a toaster, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 12:12, closed)

It's even better than that.
I started university in the first year that we had the £3000 top-up fees. I don't think I know a single student that's repaid any of that money yet. Even if they earn over 15k (most don't), their payments are LESS that the interest on their loans. So their debt is going to keep increasing until they get a substantial payrise (I'm a games tester...it's gonna be AGES before I even earn 15k, so I'm not even worrying about it.)

Now we are going to have students with (vaguely) triple the debt, and a much higher repayment threshold (21k up from 15k). What kind of graduate jobs do they expect all the people studying media, drama, music, games, sports, art etc. to get?!

So when this debt is written off...is that money just going to vanish?
( Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:48, closed)

As a music graduate I can help there...
1 year - HMV
5 years - Ringtones
1 year - Teacher training
Present - Teacher

On my current salary - the first pay spine for teachers - only now, after eight years would I be earning enough to start repaying a student debt, and that debt would have grown substantially due to further training required.

I'm unlikely to ever finish paying off the debt I do have, never mind the potential £27k it would have taken just to get through Uni. Add to that the idea of teaching becoming a Masters level profession and that would be another potential £9k a year for two years. On a starting salary just enough to match the threshold for repayments.

Apologies for inadvertently turning this into a rant but it seems to me that long term it's not just higher education that's getting fucked over here... Can't have an education system without any teachers...
( Sonic James Doom forgetting the date since... umm..., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:57, closed)

I respect anyone who goes into teaching...
...sounds riskier that clearing minefields sometimes.

Oh and the rant wasn't that bad...they look a lot shorter when stretched across the entire page :)
( Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:02, closed)

Not really that bad...
It's doing my first year of teaching alongside moving house, looking after a toddler and my second child being born four weeks ago that's tough. Job itself is ace.

Mind you, I'm in Primary...
( Sonic James Doom forgetting the date since... umm..., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 23:05, closed)

what we would end up with is...
a raft of teachers who are incredibly well off and most likely of the horsey ilk who are really rather out of touch with the 'common' child. I reckon most teachers have had a pretty good experience with education or they wouldn't be doing it as a profession themselves. however, if most of these well meaning people can't afford the degrees, the whole schooling system will have a severe lack of 'soul'. I mean, the people who want to be there, the people who can actually relate to the yoof or whatever.

I fear there will otherwise be a teaching population of those with vast sums of money to pay for it, therefore coming from an abnormally privileged background and not really capable of dealing with/caring about those who don't come from this background. The flipside, those who take on the debt anyway and do it because it's the right thing to do. I certainly hope this won't leave these real gems feeling disaffected.

I don't really know any mega-posh teachers yet, probably because its not the glamour job befitting such mega-poshers. I hope it doesn't become the trend or we're going to have yet another negative consequence of social classes being further divided by these hikes in tuition fees.

Maybe with the academy schools the pay will cover this student debt, but even this is bad news. Numbers driven education is a complete fallacy. People are not robots - you need to enjoy the subject you learn and then you will truly succeed at it, leave with a positive attitude towards it and make the most of your life, buoyed by this experience. If you've been slave-driven into getting impressive numbers and you succeed at that, yet your experience of school was a bitter one, you're only going to pass this down the line to your own kids, thus muddying the waters of the future.

I worry about England, but I'm glad I'm Scottish. The whole attitude towards the population is a far cry from my 'bleed you dry' experiences I've had down here.

Rant over.
(ComradePotato, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 0:21, closed)

There's a small but significant number of teachers who only went into the profession because their degree was so poor they got rejected from everything else.
They often end up in the lowest-performing state schools and contribute a good deal to the general air of misery, soulless bellowing and high blood pressure.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 1:13, closed)

"I don't really know any mega-posh teachers yet, probably because its not the glamour job befitting such mega-poshers"
Yeah, that kind of blows the whole of the first part of your argument out of the water doesn't it? Do you know any teachers? Have you been in a school since you left it? No? Then don't venture forth your ignorant opinions. Thank you.
(TheFlyingOnion. looking forward to, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 9:51, closed)

That's my point
even if your debt keeps increasing your repayments are dependent on what you earn and if you can't afford to pay nothing bad happens to you so what is there to worry about?
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:03, closed)

You can't expect one of society's most privileged sections to actually give anything back to it.
Greed is right, sharing is wrong. What are you, some kind of communist?
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:10, closed)

1.
"I'd like to apply for a mortgage please".

"Certainly. Do you have any existing loans?"

"Er..."
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 14:14, closed)

Do you have any existing loans apart from a student loan?
No.

Why certainly sir!
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 22:17, closed)

Yeah, it's very safe debt
I don't really care about my student loan, because I know that if I absolutely can't pay it back (not earning enough), I won't have to.

I don't agree with charging above-inflation interest, though. I don't mind paying for my education, but I resent the fact that the government wants to profit from my misery.
( Pretender, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:17, closed)

I do agree with that
Interest rates should be pegged to inflation
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:49, closed)

I see what the problem is.
I went to uni when it was free. Completely free.
Now people have to pay for it. Yes they pay after the fact but they still have to pay.

The big deal is that it's not fair.

Also, I have known many people with degrees who do not earn big wages.
In fact talking about this with my friends, the only one of us who doesn't have a degree is the highest earner. Having a degree is no longer the guarantee of a good job it once was.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:38, closed)

I was thinking about this too today
Basically everything costs money.

So going to university costs £23k - £30k at the moment

In the past I can understand that having a degree = higher wages = more tax = more money back to the government = win. But this doesn't really work. Those that don't go to university shouldn't be paying for those that do. (Not really my view)

So how do we recoup the cost of universities without unfairly taxing those that don't go or leaving those that have gone with crippling debt. Surely a simple graduate tax of 1%-2.5% for everyone that has been through the university system would bring in enough revenue over a long period of time to pay for the universities and provide grants for students.

Maybe I am being too simplistic, but knowing I would be losing 100th of my future earnings over a 40 year career is a lot more manageable then here is your certificate and 30k of debt. It also means I am contributing even if I am earning very little.

I d wonder how come Scotland can offer free Universities but England can't?
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:58, closed)

To all intents and purposes
the current system is essentially a graduate tax isn't it? The difference being that the takings are targeted more to the universities that people chose to attend rather than going into a big pot. At least that's how I understand it, anyone who knows better please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for how Scotland affords it, I don't know. I know one argument is "they don't, England pays for it", but I'd wager that's a borderline xenophobic oversimplification.
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 23:07, closed)

no idea
how we pay for it, but we do. And as for England paying for it, my defense to this line is that a significant proportion of top end businessmen/women and entrepreneurs and people who are in positions of high authority and making a success of things, particularly in London, seem to be Scottish. So even if England is 'paying for it', a lot of this investment ends up down south to contribute to the nation as a whole.

I'm not saying we're keeping England's boat afloat at all, but there's definitely a major contribution coming from Scotland. Free education is a good thing, and if its worthwhile (i.e. not David Beckham studies, and not openly given away to fairly self-indulgent tv/media studies courses) then uni education should at least be affordable to all.
(ComradePotato, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 0:28, closed)

Here's a big clue, England pays for it
Also, by a significant proportion you mean Duncan Bannatyne, you can take him and all the Scottish pissheads of Holloway Road and fuck off back to scottishland
( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:06, closed)

We pay for uni in Scotland
By means of a Graduate Endowment.
(dna_girl, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 23:25, closed)

Scotland.....
Traditionally, the culture and history of education is different. Most specifically, the Scottish egalitarian tradition in education, which goes back to the Reformation, and advocated free, universal education for all.
The Scottish government therefore allocates more capita per head for further education than England and the Universities are expected to prove their worth with useful research etc.
Now fuck off you racist fuck!
(bettyginger and no-one else wanted to play in my cannibal cafe, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 17:51, closed)

errr... England pay for it.
in the grand scheme of things, scotland is a net receiver of taxes. in exactly the same way that london is a net payer of taxes. The only way scotland can pay for free higher education and free care for the elderly, is because it is propped up by england. So when english kids are going to be paying off loans for their whole lives, scottish people, will not have to, and will then get exactly the same privileges as those from england.

Not sure about wales.

Very nice of you to give a philosophical answer as an excuse though, no matter how pointless.
(The Kwyjibo A big, dumb, balding North American ape., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 18:16, closed)

Actually...
Scotland doesn't have free care for the elderly. It has free personal care which accounts to less than 7% of the overall over 65 care costs. The majority being residential care (which is capped in Scotland - therefore limiting the market and making it less likely for private individuals/companies profiting off other people's misfortune)

Actually, I've just looked it up. England also has free personal care to the over 65s.
(bettyginger and no-one else wanted to play in my cannibal cafe, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 18:32, closed)

Going off topic
I'm not disputing the fact that London (as our nation's capital) generates the largest amount of income and indeed, props up the majority of the country. My point is that Scotland has a different cultural background from England. As does Wales and NI.
I just feel it is rather unfortunate that *some* people believe the myth that England supports everyone who isn't English.
(bettyginger and no-one else wanted to play in my cannibal cafe, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 18:48, closed)

but it does.
If the North East of England, also a net receiver of taxes, decided that students could get their university fees paid for, there would be outcry. Similarly, if people from Edinburgh were charged for university fees, people would not be very happy.

Scots get exactly the same benefits of having a degree, but none of the downsides. It is not fair, and the whole argument about tuition fees is about fairness, so let's start here.
(The Kwyjibo A big, dumb, balding North American ape., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 19:10, closed)

I agree that free education is a good thing
Ideologically I'm all in favour of free higher education for all. I'm just aware the money's got to come from somewhere and this seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem.
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:09, closed)

The real problem with the Browne review
is not the money per se, it's the attack on education in general.

And also however much you explain that there will be tiered payment back, you are inevitably going to put off the some of the best from the state school system off applying to the best universities. People think short-term. Better to live at home and go to the local university and save money, than go somewhere different that's better suited to you. Or not go at all.

£60,000 is an awful lot of money to most people, and though there are actually some decent arguments FOR introducing higher tutition fees, the main problem is you're destroying all the work that access schemes etc have been trying to do over the last few years
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 23:26, closed)

Also, people who are genuinely intelligent and motivated don't need to be validated by glorified private schools.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 0:49, closed)

Yeah - try putting that on a CV and seeing how well it makes up for the big, empty spaces in the section marked 'education'.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 18:30, closed)

Try putting a degree on your CV instead of (up to) six years' relevant work experience.
Trust me, it's no substitute.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 16:49, closed)

Bollocks.
For many jobs you won't get past the first round of job agency monkeys because your CV doesn't fit the employers' minimum requirement that the applicant is degree qualified. The 'recrutment consultant' doesn't give a fuck if you're experienced, computer says no. They'll probably have plenty of applicants with a degree AND experience anyway in which case you're fucked.

On a similar note, there's a couple of guys I work with who have 15+ years experience in our industry but no degree. I have a couple of years of relevant experience and a BSc. Myself and the other younger guys with degrees are getting paid more than the guys with much more experience than us for the same job. Its unfair and wrong IMO, but that's company policy. When we recruit now, you only get in with a degree as a minimum.

Older guys with experience will have worked their way up into management (like my immediate team leader) over the last 20-odd years and obviously experience is everything once you've had a couple of jobs.

However, now you need a degree to get in at ground level, what chance does someone in their teens or early twenties have to prove themselves without a degree? Slim to none in many industries, when universities are churning out graduates by the thousand.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 21:59, closed)

White-collar agencies weren't interested in whether or not I had a degree, the fact was I had almost no experience and so I couldn't even register with them.
And when it came to industrial work, the 4-5 year gap in my work history counted very much against me. You can argue to the contrary as much as you like, but that's what happened.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 23:15, closed)

So how is a kid straight out of school with no experience any better?
They're not. Or are you seriously telling me that industrial employers will take on a 16 year old with GCSEs and no experience over a 21 year old with a degree and no experience for a technical position?

Everyone suffers the 'no experience' problem when they enter work, but having a relevant degree can hold the doors open to get that when that's all employers have to go on.

All the jobs I've ever had have had or been interviewed for have a minimum BSc. requirement, whether it was really needed or not. That situation is increasingly common for many positions where 20 years ago you'd get in with A-levels.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 7:09, closed)

Technical positions just didn't exist for the most part, I was going for actual obtainable jobs that would pay the bills.
And in those situations, an over-educated 22 year old with nearly no experience is usually on a par with an untried school-leaver with absolutely no experience.

Even when technical positions did exist, graduate-employers couldn't have been less interested if they'd tried. I asked for feedback every time and never once got an acknowledgment, so I've still no idea what I was doing wrong.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 0:36, closed)

"£60,000 pounds is a lot of money to most people"
I agree it's a shitload of cash! what I disagree with is the idea that having £60,000 pounds-worth of "soft debt" as someone already put it should be a disincentive from studying. Incurring this debt has no negative consequences (please someone point some out if I'm wrong), and gives you the chance to dramatically improve your lot in life. You can't lose!

Of course, as has been pointed out, you might be better off not going to university. Having a degree by no means guarantees a better-paying job. Last time I checked, that's life, nothing's guaranteed. What the government are doing is making sure the choice to go to university is still risk-free for the individual without bankrupting the rest of the country in order to pay for it.

It's like a casino where you get to put down 60 grand of someone else's money on red or black. If you win big you get hundreds of thousands of pounds over the course of a lifetime, if you lose, "oh well, pay it off when you can."
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:05, closed)

Is your attitude to debt
the same as everyone elses?

I'm not sure that when I started uni, if fees had been more than nominal, that someone wibbling about student loans only being "soft debt" would have sounded convincing.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 14:17, closed)

I guess that's what I'm asking
Everyone would agree that being in debt is bad. What I'm asking is a debt that you don't have to pay back a debt at all?
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 22:20, closed)

Incurring this debt
means that the vast majority who will earn over £21,000 will pay an extra 9% tax on that proportion of their income for the next 30-odd years of their working lives. They won't pay it off early, I incurred £7,000 of loans and I haven't paid it all off 9 years later.

Its effectively a tax on the children of the middle classes as the rich kids will pay up front, the poor kids won't pay at all.

Why is it fair that two people with the same degree doing the same job for the same wage will get taxed at different rates purely because their parents salaries were different when they were 18? Both have gone to uni and used the same resources, why does one pay more?
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 17:50, closed)

Good point.
That warrants some more thought. Thank you!
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 19:33, closed)

The middle classes are well attached to their welfare.
They need to be abused more as children to learn that life isn't fair.
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 6:44, closed)

It's about the cuts in the education budget
The lack of EMA, the higher tuition fees, the graduate tax, the higher interest rate, the fact that Clegg promised not to raise tuition fees, the fact that ConDem has stated that the foreign students should not have to prop up home students if they study here.
(Iggy Pop's Teeth, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 20:45, closed)

You have written a whole lot of words
Without actually making a point
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 22:22, closed)

Yeah, sure
It's about how all of those will affect the quality of - and ability to undertake - education in the UK.
(Iggy Pop's Teeth, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 23:37, closed)

I would say that most of that
is down to the serious lack of money to spend in higher education (since the government are preserving spending on compulsory education and health that doesn't leave a lot left over to run the country).

As for Clegg's promises, the cynic in me would say that's politicians for you. Another point of view would be that he had no idea quite how broke we are before getting into government.

As for the foreign students thing, they already pay way more than British students. Do you know what they pay as a proportion of the actual cost of the degree?
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 13:30, closed)

About a quarter?
People who go to a different country to study SHOULD pay more to fund the local students.
(Iggy Pop's Teeth, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 21:20, closed)

I agree
Can't charge them too much though or no-one would come!

25% does seem like an amazingly good deal. I think I'd be in favour of raising that a bit.
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 19:34, closed)