Bit of a hoo-haa down in london

[Phil_S]

First of all the Liberals never won the election. In fact no one did. The country voted for a coalition & thats what they got. (In actual fact if you take the Scots out of the equation England voted conservative.) That means that by defintion not all parties can keep their promises.
The fact is that we can't afford as a country to give free education to all because Gordon Brown went on a spending spree, on borrowed money even when recieving record tax receipts meaning that he had to borrow even more when the downturn happened. The clown even sold some of the countries gold reserves at rock bottom prices.

Focusing on the students, they seem to forget that they only have to start paying the fees back when & if they earn over £21,000. Correct me if I'm wrong but the fees don't have to be paid by them up front. If they haven't repaid it within 30 years the debt is written off. I don't see why my taxes should fund jo bloggs going on a trendy art & design course when my daughter is on an apprenticeship at £95 per week.
I disagree with the notion that it is desirable for 50% of kids to go to Uni, but those that do should earn more in their lifetime than those who don't. Why the hell shouldn't they pay for it. (Of course I do realise that they may well do through higher income taxes any way)
If perchance they don't earn much they don't have to pay. Seems reasonably fair to me when the country is broke.

[DMR]

First of all the Liberals never won the election. In fact no one did. The country voted for a coalition & thats what they got. (In actual fact if you take the Scots out of the equation England voted conservative.) That means that by defintion not all parties can keep their promises.
The fact is that we can't afford as a country to give free education to all because Gordon Brown went on a spending spree, on borrowed money even when recieving record tax receipts meaning that he had to borrow even more when the downturn happened. The clown even sold some of the countries gold reserves at rock bottom prices.

Focusing on the students, they seem to forget that they only have to start paying the fees back when & if they earn over £21,000. Correct me if I'm wrong but the fees don't have to be paid by them up front. If they haven't repaid it within 30 years the debt is written off. I don't see why my taxes should fund jo bloggs going on a trendy art & design course when my daughter is on an apprenticeship at £95 per week.
I disagree with the notion that it is desirable for 50% of kids to go to Uni, but those that do should earn more in their lifetime than those who don't. Why the hell shouldn't they pay for it. (Of course I do realise that they may well do through higher income taxes any way)
If perchance they don't earn much they don't have to pay. Seems reasonably fair to me when the country is broke.

To which my rather flippant albeit serious reply would be why should me/my brother's generation have to fill the financial void and foot the bill for the way the last lot fucked it?

It's a massive cop-out on the govt's behalf, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out they reckon one way of clawing back some of the deficit is to milk undergraduates for 30 grand rather than 15, where is the justification in inflating fees massively if little to none of it is reinvested in  further education - which it wont be?

[pauld]

Fair play to them im 100 percent behind them,its good to see British students grow some balls.Wont be long till we're told its a few "anarchist trouble makers" and not really students.

By the NUS, for one:

Mr Porter later described the violence as 'despicable' and said a small minority had 'hijacked' the rally, suggesting they had planned it beforehand.

[santasdead]

It's a Wednesday... most of 'us' would have at least most of the day off anyway. As said before, my younger brother is now facing astronomical fees if/when he goes to Uni, god forbid I should want to protest just cos I'm done in 7 months...

There is that. But like what Phil_S say, they have raised the minimum level of income before the students pay back any loans. So the students will be getting more for it in the end anyway. With £6K (i think) difference between today's payment threshold and the future lowest level of paying money back, the future graduates could effectively pay off a whole years worth of tuition and still have as much money as recent graduates have before they are taxed/pay back.

Today : £15k repayment threshold (so the graduates are gettin less than £15k after repayment of some of their loan.
Future: £21k repayment threshold , £6k fees. The graduates can pay the whole £6k off and still have more money than todays graduates after repayment.
 

[yeo]

Ha ha Sky News are reporting that the MI5 building at Thames House is in lock down,seriously students you don't want to fuck with the Spooks

[reeves4england]

I've been bombarded with messages from my old uni for weeks about this. Glad to see it's been a success in terms of the numbers turning out.

I agree with Phil in the sense that these fees shouldn't stop people going to uni, as they don't have to be paid back afterwards, and those who argue it makes education only affordable for the rich are kind of missing the point.

But then, as DMR says, milking more and more money out of people so they can get an education is wrong. Especially given that at present there are people out there with good degrees who can't find jobs. There was a massive education drive under Labour and that isn ow unaffordable, so either we hike up the fees to recoup the money we're splashing out, or we reverse this stupid notion that anybody who doesn't have a degree isn't worth employing. Unfortunately the government are going for the former, so students who do the degree I did in 5 years time could be coming out with debts around £40k rather than £25k.

Sure it gets paid back bit by bit and only when you're earning enough... but that extra £15k is a lot of money to almost anybody.

[yeo]

hahahaha this ace,Sky News right now is hilarious

[Bogus Dave]

There is that. But like what Phil_S say, they have raised the minimum level of income before the students pay back any loans. So the students will be getting more for it in the end anyway. With £6K (i think) difference between today's payment threshold and the future lowest level of paying money back, the future graduates could effectively pay off a whole years worth of tuition and still have as much money as recent graduates have before they are taxed/pay back.

Today : £15k repayment threshold (so the graduates are gettin less than £15k after repayment of some of their loan.
Future: £21k repayment threshold , £6k fees. The graduates can pay the whole £6k off and still have more money than todays graduates after repayment.
 

Firstly you can't do that - A levy would be put in place to stop people paying it off early
Secondly, the interest rate at which you repay is to rise. Double the current figure if you earn more than 41 grand.
Thirdly, just look at the numbers - A 3 year degree now costs just shy of 10 grand. A 3 year degree in he future costs anything from 18k to 27k. Surely a complettely fairer treatment would be to raise the repayment threshold to the same extent

[reeves4england]

Today : £15k repayment threshold (so the graduates are gettin less than £15k after repayment of some of their loan.
Future: £21k repayment threshold , £6k fees. The graduates can pay the whole £6k off and still have more money than todays graduates after repayment.
 

That argument presumes today's graduate gets a £15k salary and the future graduate gets £21k salary. And is therefore no justification at all.

I'll accept that a student earning £21k today is worse off than a student earning £21k in the future, but only marginally, and only until the loan is paid off, which will happen much more quickly for the current student.

In other words, you're wrong.

[nevillew]

where is the justification in inflating fees massively if little to none of it is reinvested in  further education - which it wont be?

That argument could apply to many things, duty on petrol being reinvested in roads, cigarette and alcohol duty reinvested in the NHS.

Who should foot the bill, and how then ?

[pauld]

I agree with Phil in the sense that these fees shouldn't stop people going to uni, as they don't have to be paid back afterwards, and those who argue it makes education only affordable for the rich are kind of missing the point.

Bollocks. The level of debt students are currently left with is a massive deterrent to kids facing taking on that level of debt, I know that from direct personal experience (my stepson) especially when what they get at the end of it is so devalued. Not making a party political point per se as both those things happened under Labour (fees and devaluing degrees, in fact qualifications in general). But doubling or trebling the level of debt they're going to incur only adds to that deterrent.

What about looking at the tax-dodgers (as in actual tax avoiders, not students for once) first?

[pauld]

That argument could apply to many things, duty on petrol being reinvested in roads, cigarette and alcohol duty reinvested in the NHS.

Who should foot the bill, and how then ?

What about a levy on banks and bankers? You know, maybe get the fuckers who caused the problem to pay for it.

EDIT: And to satisfy Phil and SummerOf79, a fine on every Labour Cabinet Minister in the previous government and a precept on their future earnings can also go in the pot. And we should repossess Cherie Blair's teeth

[reeves4england]

Bollocks. The level of debt students are currently left with is a massive deterrent to kids facing taking on that level of debt, I know that from direct personal experience (my stepson) especially when what they get at the end of it is so devalued. Not making a party political point per se as both those things happened under Labour (fees and devaluing degrees, in fact qualifications in general). But doubling or trebling the level of debt they're going to incur only adds to that deterrent.

What about looking at the tax-dodgers (as in actual tax avoiders, not students for once) first?

I said shouldn't, not doesn't. If you look into the economics of it, yes this new system makes people worse off, but does not make education any more 'unaffordable' than it was before. There is nobody out there who drops below the poverty line because of their student loan repayments, the system is designed so as to avoid that.

And in case I wasn't clear before, I am AGAINST the new system. I just happen to get rather annoyed by inaccurate economic arguments, whether for or against. Hence my mini rant at santasdead above.

[tans]

Haha this is quality.
Did anyone see the fire extinguisher thrown from the top floor?

Sky news are shitting it

[pauld]

I said shouldn't, not doesn't. If you look into the economics of it, yes this new system makes people worse off, but does not make education any more 'unaffordable' than it was before. There is nobody out there who drops below the poverty line because of their student loan repayments, the system is designed so as to avoid that.

OK, you are economically and semantically accurate. In practice, though, these fees are a massive deterrent to anyone but the very well off from getting a university education. Doesn't mean some of the less well off won't do it, many still will, but many who would qualify academically will be put off by the debt. And I don't mean the poor and the destitute - at 3k, this is already hitting kids from those "decent hardworking families" we keep hearing so much about, fuck knows what impact 6-9k pa will have