• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

JonathanEx
Member
(07-02-2017, 08:42 PM)
JonathanEx's Avatar
While we're still on a bit of a quiet Sunday after the madness, may I re-recommend Dead Ringers. Very strong episode this week, Fox News being a particular highlight: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08w11zk#play
iapetus
Scary Euro Man
(07-02-2017, 09:37 PM)
iapetus's Avatar
Why not just relax with a nice Sunday evening animated movie?

FliXFantatier
Member
(07-02-2017, 10:20 PM)
FliXFantatier's Avatar

Originally Posted by -Plasma Reus-

https://youtu.be/HEN0pppgjrw

Experts...
Syder
Member
(07-02-2017, 10:23 PM)
Syder's Avatar
Vince Cable pledges to fight the 'irrational cult of youth' in Liberal Democrat leadership bid

Sir Vince Cable has said he plans to tackle the “irrational cult of youth” as he attempts to become the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

The 74-year-old described his age and experience as an asset, adding that Britain's current "sober mood" means now is the time for an older leader.

His political opponents Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May are aged 68 and 60 respectively and the former Business Secretary believes age is no longer important.

“I think there was an irrational cult of youth at one point in our political cycle,” Sir Vince told The Times.

“There are occasions when you get some young and exciting politician that is exactly right. Obama was exactly right and you could argue the same of Tony Blair and there are periods of history where that’s the public mood.

“There is now a more sober mood and one that values experience, and there is nothing to stop older people being radical in their views. It’s the mood of the age, where the age you have is much less important than what you feel and what you can do with it.”

Beefy
Banned
(07-02-2017, 10:24 PM)
Tony Blair.....
Lagamorph
Member
(07-02-2017, 10:28 PM)
Lagamorph's Avatar
That'll go over well with young voters who are difficult enough to get out voting as it is.
*Splinter
Member
(07-02-2017, 10:36 PM)
*Splinter's Avatar
What a weird thing to highlight. It's not like there's a "young" option at the moment, for all that matters.
CCS
Member
(07-02-2017, 11:12 PM)
CCS's Avatar

Originally Posted by Syder

Vince Cable pledges to fight the 'irrational cult of youth' in Liberal Democrat leadership bid

Lib Dems continue to be fucking shit at messaging I see.
Theonik
Banned
(07-02-2017, 11:17 PM)
Theonik's Avatar
An old pair of steady hands etc
TimmmV
Member
(07-03-2017, 12:04 AM)
TimmmV's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dirtyshubb

As others have mentioned the argument that no tuition fees is a bribe to the young is ridiculous and pointless.

The thing that annoys me is that opposing better education available for the young is such a long term harmful move. A population that is better educated is beneficial in so many different ways that not trying our best to make it happen is severely harmful for the countries future.

Of course the right would prefer people to be stupid and have historically tried their best to hold people down but ordinary people who argue against it are doing so with pure stupidity or selfishness.

Yeah, its annoying how so much of the discussion of Uni is focused on employability or making the money back through tax revenue after - sometimes education for the sake of it is a good thing.

One thing that really pisses me off about Tuition fees is that they effect the higher earners the least - they pay off their loans the fastest - so pay the least in interest, whereas those on lower incomes pay back a little but are due to have their loan written off after 25 years - so stand to save a chunk at the end of it.

But for those who earn around the median income (iirc i read a person entering a grad job after uni on about 20k and then averaging 3% annual wage growth over career), they end up paying it off after around 25 years - so they pay the most in interest and don't get much written off at all.

It really just seems fairer to tax people on how much they earn as an adult, regardless of whether they went to uni or not, and have education be free/a much lower cost.

It's not even like this is such a radical idea either - most countries in the EU charge way less for university education. It's acceptance as a necessity seems to be quite a British thing really
Protome
Member
(07-03-2017, 12:19 AM)
Protome's Avatar

Originally Posted by CCS

Lib Dems continue to be fucking shit at messaging I see.

They're putting a guy with suicidal ties to the coalition in charge, there's no good way to spin it may as well try and make young voters hate him for a different reason.
Kotetsu534
Member
(07-03-2017, 01:10 AM)

Originally Posted by TimmmV

It really just seems fairer to tax people on how much they earn as an adult, regardless of whether they went to uni or not, and have education be free/a much lower cost.

It's not even like this is such a radical idea either - most countries in the EU charge way less for university education. It's acceptance as a necessity seems to be quite a British thing really

I agree with this. There are a lot of people taking on a lot of debt - at significant interest rates - who won't benefit much from their studies relative to where they would have got to without going to university. Early income for the average graduate outside the Russell Group isn't anything spectacular. There are also those who will end up earning tons without going. The very rich (or very high earning) will also easily avoid the long-term consequences of compound interest. There are also those (like me) who got lucky one way or another (e.g. missed the imposition of tuition fees, or happen to be a Scottish student studying in Scotland).

If this means there's not enough money to maintain current matriculation rates then I'd rather see a sensible cost/benefit analysis done against projected likelihood of boost in employment prospects in deciding who to fund. Trade off can be that gradutes must agree to work here for x years after graduating, or become liable to for their own costs.
Coriolanus
Member
(07-03-2017, 02:29 AM)
Coriolanus's Avatar
I just see "free" tuition fees in the same way i see military spending: you should do it to keep your work forces competitive, since other nations are doing exactly that. The students are your army, and you want them as ready as possible to compete with foreign forces in the world stage. In the same vein, you want absolutely excellent universities in order to be able to entice foreign agents to defect to your country.

Plus, like, has there, like, ever been a country that collapsed because it invested too much into education?
twofoldd
Junior Member
(07-03-2017, 07:03 AM)
twofoldd's Avatar
Where's the proof that the current tuition fees are deterring people from going to uni leading to an undereducated work force? Have there been any studies on this? Surely it's the high living costs that's the big deterrent, not the fees themselves, since the fees don't need to be paid until the student is earning a decent wage.

The 9% over £21k 'tax' or 'contribution' (it's not a loan - I don't know why they call it one) feels like a bargain to me. It's a small price to pay for the benefits a degree gives. And the people who did worthless degrees won't have to pay much of it back anyway. I guess I don't see how it's a bad deal.
StayDead
um wat
(07-03-2017, 07:05 AM)
StayDead's Avatar

Originally Posted by Coriolanus

I just see "free" tuition fees in the same way i see military spending: you should do it to keep your work forces competitive, since other nations are doing exactly that. The students are your army, and you want them as ready as possible to compete with foreign forces in the world stage. In the same vein, you want absolutely excellent universities in order to be able to entice foreign agents to defect to your country.

Plus, like, has there, like, ever been a country that collapsed because it invested too much into education?

DO YOU WANT TO BE THE FIRST? /tory MP

Originally Posted by twofoldd

Where's the proof that the current tuition fees are deterring people from going to uni leading to an undereducated work force? Have there been any studies on this? Surely it's the high living costs that's the big deterrent, not the fees themselves, since the fees don't need to be paid until the student is earning a decent wage.

The 9% over £21k 'tax' or 'contribution' (it's not a loan - I don't know why they call it one) feels like a bargain to me. It's a small price to pay for the benefits a degree gives. And the people who did worthless degrees won't have to pay much of it back anyway. I guess I don't see how it's a bad deal.

The fees are a massive debt before you even start working. Yes you don't pay until you earn x amount, but you're still paying for them on more than likely a very pitiful wage and it can take years. When living costs are already high, even when earning that amount it puts you into serious trouble when you start paying it.

Debt =/= good for peoples mental health.
Spuck-uk
Member
(07-03-2017, 07:15 AM)
Spuck-uk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Syder

Vince Cable pledges to fight the 'irrational cult of youth' in Liberal Democrat leadership bid

Well that was a smart thing to say, considering students were the only thing brought them relevance once.

Just terrible optics.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
(07-03-2017, 07:16 AM)
War Peaceman's Avatar
There was a great link that someone posted semi-recently in a UK politics thread that said (probably summarising badly) that making tuition fees free would not be substantially different in cost to the current system due to the amount of debt that is expected to be written off. I wish I could find the research paper.
Horsefly
Junior Member
(07-03-2017, 07:31 AM)

Originally Posted by TeddyBoy

From Yougov, Labours support among the under 30s is exceptionally high so anywhere Corbyn goes with young people he'll get a warm reception.

In terms of voting records, Yougov doesn't have that in easily available but it was reported that many people who previously didn't vote in a general election did vote for Labour this time (mainly because of Corbyn).

Thanks, but this isn't exactly what I'm getting at. I'm wondering if anyone has any knowledge about the people that actually turn up to see Corbyn in person.
twofoldd
Junior Member
(07-03-2017, 07:43 AM)
twofoldd's Avatar

Originally Posted by StayDead

The fees are a massive debt before you even start working. Yes you don't pay until you earn x amount, but you're still paying for them on more than likely a very pitiful wage and it can take years. When living costs are already high, even when earning that amount it puts you into serious trouble when you start paying it.

Debt =/= good for peoples mental health.

But it's not real debt.

Nobody is going to chase you if you don't pay it off, it's not going to affect your credit rating, and it's not going to affect your eligibility when applying for other lending products.

Who cares if you're not going to earn enough to pay it off? It'll be wiped in 30 years anyway.

And if the word debt is so scary they should just rename it, cos it's not a real debt at all. Shudder to think how these people will cope with real debts like credit cards, mortgages, and loans.

I also don't think 9% over £21k is that much either. It's around £100 per month if you're earning £35k. How much would taxes have to go up to fund free tuition fees? And how would this figure compare to the current loan payment?


Originally Posted by Spuck-uk

Well that was a smart thing to say, considering students were the only thing brought them relevance once.

Just terrible optics.

Cable was talking about the leaders, not the electorate. May, Corbyn, and Cable are all much older than Blair, Cameron, etc. and Cable was saying their age and experience is an asset in today's political climate. He didn't reference the electorate at all.

Do you disagree with him?
Last edited by twofoldd; 07-03-2017 at 08:02 AM.
JonathanEx
Member
(07-03-2017, 08:34 AM)
JonathanEx's Avatar
I don't hugely understand the loads except it's 80 quid off my paycheck or something, not too bad, I wasn't 9k a year so that's nice, but there was talk of selling off the student loan book. What would that impact in terms of paying things back? Could a future government/buyer change how people pay back/how much significantly?
Dougald
Member
(07-03-2017, 08:39 AM)
Dougald's Avatar

Originally Posted by War Peaceman

There was a great link that someone posted semi-recently in a UK politics thread that said (probably summarising badly) that making tuition fees free would not be substantially different in cost to the current system due to the amount of debt that is expected to be written off. I wish I could find the research paper.

I can't see how most debt won't be written off. I graduated with "just" 14 grand in debt and I'll have it paid off in exactly 10 years, and I'm just about a higher-rate taxpayer, so I'm paying off a fairly decent amount of about £200 a month.

I'm not sure how someone who graduates with 4-5 times that, on a higher interest rate with lower repayments, is going to get it paid off in 25 years unless they end up on a much better job than average. We might as well either ditch fees entirely (my preference), or stop with the pretence that most people will be able to pay it back and introduce a real graduate tax.
Addnan
Member
(07-03-2017, 08:40 AM)
How is HE in other European countries in terms of quality? I only know of University of Graz in Austria and some aspects of it seem to be a bit of a farce. Lack of funding means a shortage of places available on courses/modules and it leads to students taking a lot longer to finish their degrees. Taking 5-6 years because they need a specific module to graduate and getting into it is pot luck.


First year to get fucked here, 2012... :( I logged into student loans website just to check how much I owe. I won't look again.
Dirtyshubb
Member
(07-03-2017, 08:42 AM)
Dirtyshubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd

But it's not real debt.

Nobody is going to chase you if you don't pay it off, it's not going to affect your credit rating, and it's not going to affect your eligibility when applying for other lending products.

Who cares if you're not going to earn enough to pay it off? It'll be wiped in 30 years anyway.

And if the word debt is so scary they should just rename it, cos it's not a real debt at all. Shudder to think how these people will cope with real debts like credit cards, mortgages, and loans.

I also don't think 9% over £21k is that much either. It's around £100 per month if you're earning £35k. How much would taxes have to go up to fund free tuition fees? And how would this figure compare to the current loan payment?

The idea though that you are still going into the situation with debt that either gets wiped because you never earn enough to pay it back (Bigger things to worry about at that point) or you're paying out more money once you do get a higher paid job and that is off putting for many especially those with commitments.

That's why you are finding a lot of people going into apprenticeships now instead of going to Uni, you can earn a qualification and get paid doing it and usually come out at the end with a better and higher paid job.

As someone else mentioned in real terms the difference between having tuition fees and not isn't that much due to the amount of people who never pay it back so why not take the fees away and remove that last stigma left for people who might want to go?

That way you have a population who have even less reason to think "Can i afford to go to University?" and instead mainly decide on what they think would be the best path into their chosen path.
Dougald
Member
(07-03-2017, 08:43 AM)
Dougald's Avatar

Originally Posted by Addnan

First year to get fucked here, 2012... :( I logged into student loans website just to check how much I owe. I won't look again.

I hate to be blunt but I didn't even pay top-up fees, I was the last year of £1500 fees, so I don't give you much chance of ever repaying it. The student debt from anyone on the current regime is a write-off waiting to happen, conveniently after most people who introduced it are dead/no longer in government
Theonik
Banned
(07-03-2017, 08:54 AM)
Theonik's Avatar

Originally Posted by JonathanEx

I don't hugely understand the loads except it's 80 quid off my paycheck or something, not too bad, I wasn't 9k a year so that's nice, but there was talk of selling off the student loan book. What would that impact in terms of paying things back? Could a future government/buyer change how people pay back/how much significantly?

Student loans already suck quite badly. Can't default on them and you can't effectively sue the SLC. Governments could also always change your terms on a whim. Dealt with a couple of people that had to deal with the SLC over Erasmus grants was a terrible experience.

Now the problem with selling the loans off is that you will probably end up in a situation that they are sold underneath the portfolio value (this one doesn't matter, they will mostly be written off) and/or the repayment regime changes to mortgage style payments. But the worst scenario is you end up in the terror scenario like what happened with the utilities sell off that the loans keep some of their government power after going to the private sector. With utilities it meant private companies could seize/force sales of land. In this case it's undefaultable loans.
Dehnus
Member
(07-03-2017, 09:07 AM)

Originally Posted by -Plasma Reus-

https://youtu.be/HEN0pppgjrw

Funny thing how below there are shitloads of idiots commenting that he doesn't know what he talks about. :D (not aimed at you but at the comments under that video :)).

Sure, an ancient university, that is well known for theological, medical (in the top 3 universities in Europe for Ecology, Material Sciences, Chemistry and Astronomy (Had to update this one, seems my knowledge of the RUG is a bit dated as well ;)) and physics... knows nothing. While "NIgel Down the pub, with a package of crisps and a pint of lager" is an expert :P.

So hilarious :P. Also how they act like they know Universities and brag about how many the UK has, and then discredit mainland universities like this one. As if France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark and even us Norwegians, don't have old and good universities. Just because they weren't Anglophile, as in the main language being English, and thus being a bit outside of the popular news/culture sphere broadcasted from The USA (And the UK piggybacking on that wave), doesn't mean they are bad or worse.

France has it's own rocket programs for crying out loud, Germany does a shitload of mathematical research and that University of that video brought the Dutchies the:
* First Dutch Astronaut
* First President of the European Bank
* The main architect of the CELL architecture (Yes the PS3 one!).
* The first woman in the Netherlands to become a medical doctor.
* And few Nobel Prizes ofcourse.

But yeah, I'm sure they don't research what they talk about, and Nigel at the Pub does. That and I'm sure they are very keen on sullying their good name by just stating things for "EU MONEY!" as was stated by so many in the comments underneath that video. :P. It's hilarious :).

Thank you for linking it, this is by no means a reply to you as a person, just found the comments in that link so hilarious that I had to type this somewhere.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Groningen
Last edited by Dehnus; 07-03-2017 at 09:15 AM.
JonathanEx
Member
(07-03-2017, 09:20 AM)
JonathanEx's Avatar

Originally Posted by Theonik

Student loans already suck quite badly. Can't default on them and you can't effectively sue the SLC. Governments could also always change your terms on a whim. Dealt with a couple of people that had to deal with the SLC over Erasmus grants was a terrible experience.

Now the problem with selling the loans off is that you will probably end up in a situation that they are sold underneath the portfolio value (this one doesn't matter, they will mostly be written off) and/or the repayment regime changes to mortgage style payments. But the worst scenario is you end up in the terror scenario like what happened with the utilities sell off that the loans keep some of their government power after going to the private sector. With utilities it meant private companies could seize/force sales of land. In this case it's undefaultable loans.

So while we go 'oh the loans system is fine if we design in to it that people won't always pay it back', that's not something we can rely on in future as those terms could be changed anyway when we hit the point in future when someone realises there's a lot of debt not paid back and wants to balance the books for a political point.


My 'beginners guide to understanding' view seems to be we might as well spare everyone the bother of the administration and have them for free/grants/whatever not like this if it's not really saving us much and is a big risk in future.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
(07-03-2017, 09:38 AM)
War Peaceman's Avatar

Originally Posted by JonathanEx

So while we go 'oh the loans system is fine if we design in to it that people won't always pay it back', that's not something we can rely on in future as those terms could be changed anyway when we hit the point in future when someone realises there's a lot of debt not paid back and wants to balance the books for a political point.


My 'beginners guide to understanding' view seems to be we might as well spare everyone the bother of the administration and have them for free/grants/whatever not like this if it's not really saving us much and is a big risk in future.

I cannot for the life of me find the report, but it basically indicated that tuition fees are just shuffling the money round and that free tuition would make little difference in terms of long term cost.
CyclopsRock
Member
(07-03-2017, 09:40 AM)
CyclopsRock's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dirtyshubb

As someone else mentioned in real terms the difference between having tuition fees and not isn't that much due to the amount of people who never pay it back so why not take the fees away and remove that last stigma left for people who might want to go?

That way you have a population who have even less reason to think "Can i afford to go to University?" and instead mainly decide on what they think would be the best path into their chosen path.

Is there any evidence to suggest that this is how people think, though? The number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university has been climbing for years, including during the period when fees went up (both times). As it stands right now, literally anyone can go to university if they choose to, and those that benefit most from it also pay more (which they would thanks to our graduating [pun not intended] system of income tax, but this is a bit more again). It's never going to cripple anyone due to the way it's repaid, you don't have to worry about it if you lose your job, and you don't have (as many) cleaners earning minimum wage paying for you to become an aeronautical engineer and make £150k a year.
TimmmV
Member
(07-03-2017, 10:11 AM)
TimmmV's Avatar

Originally Posted by CyclopsRock

Is there any evidence to suggest that this is how people think, though? The number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university has been climbing for years, including during the period when fees went up (both times). As it stands right now, literally anyone can go to university if they choose to, and those that benefit most from it also pay more (which they would thanks to our graduating [pun not intended] system of income tax, but this is a bit more again). It's never going to cripple anyone due to the way it's repaid, you don't have to worry about it if you lose your job, and you don't have (as many) cleaners earning minimum wage paying for you to become an aeronautical engineer and make £150k a year.

But everyone is paying for any student loan debts that are written off, while middle incomes pay more than high incomes because everyone will have the same level of debt (more or less anyway), but high incomes pay off theirs faster, and so have less interest

So those who benefit most from it aren't paying more - it's those in the middle who are scheduled to have it paid off after about 25 years (give or take a couple)

It's never going to cripple anyone in the sense like a normal loan would, but its still 9% of pay over 21k (i think anyway), which isnt a trivial amount of money for a lot of people. It totally can be crippling in terms of opportunity cost (like the young's ability to save for a house etc)
Last edited by TimmmV; 07-03-2017 at 10:14 AM.
Camp Freddie
Member
(07-03-2017, 10:20 AM)
Camp Freddie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Spuck-uk

Well that was a smart thing to say, considering students were the only thing brought them relevance once.

Just terrible optics.

This. As a LibDem voter I accepted their tuition fee "betrayal" because they were a minority party in the coalition and their 50 seats meant they didn't have the clout to keep such an expensive policy. Instead they kept their policy to raise the lower tax threshold (and an ill-planned PR referendum...), which is something I strongly believe in and something that could be 'bought' with 50 votes.

But for some cunt to campaign 8 years ago on scrapping fees and how 9K/y is a disgrace - then turn around and say "LOL, it was a stupid policy and I completely oppose it. It was just a prank bro!"
Just fuck off. He's not even trying with an apologetic, "We'd still like to lower fees as a long-term goal but first we have to prioritise public spending on rebuilding the schools and hospitals that the Tories have destroyed".

I think the current loan system is appalling. I was lucky to go before tuition fees were a thing.
The problem is the chilling effect "£36k debt" to an 18y old, which is a shockingly high amount of money. The high interest on the loan is fucking insane and penalises anyone that doesn't go straight into a high-paid job at daddy's firm.
I am a successful graduate, but like most, I took the low-paid graduate path where until I was about 30 I would have been better off if I'd worked in Tesco's for 4 years. It's only in my late 30's that I started getting the true 'rewards' of a graduate career.

This makes the loan system horribly opaque, since what should younger-me do? Pay the loan off quick to avoid the interest spiral? But then I can't get a deposit on a mortgage and I risk fucking myself over if I don't get that promotion to management...

I'm beginning to see a graduate tax as the best option, since it's at least clear what you're getting yourself into. But I think that should be coupled with a high level of government subsidy from general taxation. It's not poor people subsidising the rich when education is the driving force behind the economy. We're a high-skill/knowledge-based economy so anything that harms education harms everyone (with a 10-year lag phase, which allows current governments to be such utter cunts about it).

I would agree that vocational training needs a similar level of subsidy though (maybe even adding a 'graduate' tax option for the more expensive training schemes). We shouldn't have to rely on foreign builders and nurses because we're too stingy to fund training for our own young people. I'd even say that vocational training is more likely to pay off, since someone studying to be an electrician is probably going to be an electrician, while someone studying history will have a less obvious route to paying for their education (though humanities degrees tend to be very cheap anyway, since they don't need the infrastructure that science/engineering degrees do).
Post-Brexit we will be absolutely fucked if we don't have enough skilled workers.

Sorry for the rant, but the LibDems moving to the right is a fucking stupid idea. The LibDems need to be the left liberal party, at the sane end of the left wing - compared to Corbyn's hardcore "nationalise everything, with free jam and hard Brexit for all" and the Tory's "sell the family silver so that rich people can pay less tax". LibDems trying to be a "slightly less nasty" party won't work.
Theonik
Banned
(07-03-2017, 10:30 AM)
Theonik's Avatar
Right LD is the best scenario tbh.
twofoldd
Junior Member
(07-03-2017, 10:37 AM)
twofoldd's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dirtyshubb

The idea though that you are still going into the situation with debt that either gets wiped because you never earn enough to pay it back (Bigger things to worry about at that point) or you're paying out more money once you do get a higher paid job and that is off putting for many especially those with commitments.

I'm not following your logic here. If the degree allows you to get a higher paying job than if you didn't have the degree, surely you're still ahead even though you're paying the 9% over £21k payments.

Yes, you're now paying towards the loan, but you're still taking home way more than you would if you didn't do the degree.

Originally Posted by Dirtyshubb

That's why you are finding a lot of people going into apprenticeships now instead of going to Uni, you can earn a qualification and get paid doing it and usually come out at the end with a better and higher paid job.

I don't see why this is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Dirtyshubb

As someone else mentioned in real terms the difference between having tuition fees and not isn't that much due to the amount of people who never pay it back so why not take the fees away and remove that last stigma left for people who might want to go?

Got the numbers to hand? Would love to see them.

Originally Posted by Dirtyshubb

That way you have a population who have even less reason to think "Can i afford to go to University?" and instead mainly decide on what they think would be the best path into their chosen path.

Need to know what % of the population find tuition fees are the barrier to university. I personally think living costs are a bigger factor, but I'd love to know for certain.

Has any research been done on this?

Originally Posted by Camp Freddie

I'm beginning to see a graduate tax as the best option, since it's at least clear what you're getting yourself into. But I think that should be coupled with a high level of government subsidy from general taxation. It's not poor people subsidising the rich when education is the driving force behind the economy. We're a high-skill/knowledge-based economy so anything that harms education harms everyone (with a 10-year lag phase, which allows current governments to be such utter cunts about it).

What's the difference between your proposed system and the current system? Being serious.
Dougald
Member
(07-03-2017, 10:47 AM)
Dougald's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd

What's the difference between your proposed system and the current system? Being serious.

It at least avoids the current situation where the very highest earners pay off their loans pretty quickly, people who never went to university don't have anything to pay off, and those in the middle are stuck paying off interest until their loan is written off.

Personally I prefer just funding it out of general taxation instead, anything else further funnels the idea that higher education should only be a means to get a higher paying job.
Spuck-uk
Member
(07-03-2017, 11:11 AM)
Spuck-uk's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd


Cable was talking about the leaders, not the electorate. May, Corbyn, and Cable are all much older than Blair, Cameron, etc. and Cable was saying their age and experience is an asset in today's political climate. He didn't reference the electorate at all.

Do you disagree with him?

Not at all, that's why I said it's just terrible optics. It sounds weirdly smug, and nobody was really asking him anyway.
Theonik
Banned
(07-03-2017, 11:15 AM)
Theonik's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dougald

It at least avoids the current situation where the very highest earners pay off their loans pretty quickly, people who never went to university don't have anything to pay off, and those in the middle are stuck paying off interest until their loan is written off.

Personally I prefer just funding it out of general taxation instead, anything else further funnels the idea that higher education should only be a means to get a higher paying job.

Yes. It's more progressive to simply have it as a progressive graduate tax fixed for x number of years. But funding it from general taxation is probably ideal. Even though plumbers might complain.
Spuck-uk
Member
(07-03-2017, 11:18 AM)
Spuck-uk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Camp Freddie

Sorry for the rant, but the LibDems moving to the right is a fucking stupid idea. The LibDems need to be the left liberal party, at the sane end of the left wing - compared to Corbyn's hardcore "nationalise everything, with free jam and hard Brexit for all" and the Tory's "sell the family silver so that rich people can pay less tax". LibDems trying to be a "slightly less nasty" party won't work.

I feel obligated to mention that Corbyn and the Labour Manifesto really aren't that hardcore left wing, certainly no moreso than other mainstream social democratic parties in Europe.

The trains are already owned in part and operated for profit by government (just not the UK government), and stopping austerity is a cool and good idea all round.

The Lib Dems seem to be trying to place themselves roughly to the right of where 1997 Blair was, before he decided he was the messiah and all.
*Splinter
Member
(07-03-2017, 11:18 AM)
*Splinter's Avatar

Hello! I'm the new leader of the Lib Dems, and the first thing I'd like to say to potential voters is it doesn't matter how old I am!

K
Spuck-uk
Member
(07-03-2017, 11:19 AM)
Spuck-uk's Avatar

Originally Posted by *Splinter

K

'Hello fellow pensioners'
TimmmV
Member
(07-03-2017, 11:26 AM)
TimmmV's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dougald

Personally I prefer just funding it out of general taxation instead, anything else further funnels the idea that higher education should only be a means to get a higher paying job.

It also normalises the idea that expensive essential services should be paid by those using them as opposed to paid by the taxpayer, which isn't a road we should be going down
ss1
Junior Member
(07-03-2017, 11:27 AM)
ss1's Avatar
Seems like there is some sort of anarchy in the Tory party over the Public Sector pay cap. Boris Johnson & Michael Gove both seem keen at looking at lifting pay cap. Whether this amounts to anything remains to be seen, but the reality of having a minority government is having tangible effects already!
Wrestlemania
Member
(07-03-2017, 11:34 AM)
Wrestlemania's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd

Got the numbers to hand? Would love to see them.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9217

The IFS estimates total long-run government contribution to be £5.9bn in the current system and £13.9bn with no tuition fees and maintenance grants.
Rodelero
Member
(07-03-2017, 12:16 PM)
Rodelero's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd

The 9% over £21k 'tax' or 'contribution' (it's not a loan - I don't know why they call it one) feels like a bargain to me. It's a small price to pay for the benefits a degree gives. And the people who did worthless degrees won't have to pay much of it back anyway. I guess I don't see how it's a bad deal.

I also don't think 9% over £21k is that much either. It's around £100 per month if you're earning £35k.

It's both a loan and a tax really. For a high earner it is a loan that may end up well over £100,000. For a low earner it is a tax of 9% over £21,000 for thirty years, and if you don't think that's significant start to think about how the public would react if income tax was raised by five percent in general rather than dressed up as a loan. Hell, look at the reaction to the Lib Dem policy to raise income tax by 1% and the reaction to the Labour policy to raise it by 5% above, what, £80,000?

Yes, the person on £35,000 'only' pays back £1,200 but that's £1,200 less towards a deposit on a home. As they start to earn more of course that number rises rapidly. Have a play around with this calculator, you might be surprised at just how expensive a university education can become: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/stu...nce-calculator
Last edited by Rodelero; 07-03-2017 at 02:09 PM.
Camp Freddie
Member
(07-03-2017, 12:58 PM)
Camp Freddie's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd

What's the difference between your proposed system and the current system? Being serious.

It's simpler and more honest.
Your first degree is free but you will pay this tax. Future governments could fiddle with the tax, but it's quite easy to understand what you're getting yourself into.

The current loan system asks some very complex questions about compound interest levels vs your career path and lifetime earnings, making it impossible to make an informed choice.

I'm close to joining Corbyn's (nationalised) crazy train and letting the Lib Dems cannibalise the right-wing vote instead of the left-wing one.
What do I get in return? Free jam? Relaxed dress rules? Or is it still standing room only?
Dirtyshubb
Member
(07-03-2017, 01:07 PM)
Dirtyshubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by twofoldd

I'm not following your logic here. If the degree allows you to get a higher paying job than if you didn't have the degree, surely you're still ahead even though you're paying the 9% over £21k payments.

Yes, you're now paying towards the loan, but you're still taking home way more than you would if you didn't do the degree.

I don't see why this is a bad thing?

Got the numbers to hand? Would love to see them.

Need to know what % of the population find tuition fees are the barrier to university. I personally think living costs are a bigger factor, but I'd love to know for certain.

While the rates are actually fair compared to most loans etc. it is still a debt. You can still come out of University with up to £50,000+ debt and even if you can afford to pay it, its still a mental hurdle for people.

Im not saying that the current system doesnt work, just thinking of ideas on how we can get even better attendance and give even more people the option without any potential debt.

Originally Posted by Camp Freddie

I'm close to joining Corbyn's (nationalised) crazy train and letting the Lib Dems cannibalise the right-wing vote instead of the left-wing one.
What do I get in return? Free jam? Relaxed dress rules? Or is it still standing room only?

You get a 1st class ticket for when we seize the means of production and turn this country into a communist state. The knowledge that your supporting a (comparatively) very progressive platform that will help some of the issues the Tories and Blair have caused is why i joined Labour
Toytown Assassin
Member
(07-03-2017, 01:13 PM)
Toytown Assassin's Avatar
IIRC the main reason no government went with a graduate tax is that EU rules mean that if we give our people free degree education we have to give it to all EU citizens that want it as well. Hence the loan system that is almost the same thing in all but name but lets them charge EU citizens that study here.
tuxfool
Member
(07-03-2017, 01:15 PM)


wut?
Mr. Sam
Member
(07-03-2017, 01:23 PM)
Mr. Sam's Avatar
Is it unreasonable for me to see the difference between Boris "The Opportunist" Johnson and No. 10's lines on the pay cap as the very first rumblings of a leadership challenge?

"No 10 says no change on public sector pay policy"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40477136

Downing Street insists the position on public sector pay has not changed despite several Cabinet ministers calling for it to be scrapped.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is the latest senior cabinet minister to put pressure on the chancellor and the PM to end the 1% cap on pay rises.

Dirtyshubb
Member
(07-03-2017, 01:23 PM)
Dirtyshubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by tuxfool



wut?

Saw that this morning.

So is the fact he is wearing a tie meant to be ironic or moronic?

The depths people will go to smear Corbyn is insane.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

Is it unreasonable for me to see the difference between Boris "The Opportunist" Johnson and No. 10's lines on the pay cap as the very first rumblings of a leadership challenge?

"No 10 says no change on public sector pay policy"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40477136

I think its clear that at the moment its pretty chaotic in the Tory party right now. Every day we are hearing about different MPs responding with opposing comments on Brexit, pay cap, tuition fees etc.

At this point for the Tories sake Fuck the Tories they better sort their shit out because its just making them look like a shambles. Having Gove insult Nicky Morgan for saying we should cut the pay cap with "Pfff yeah well she always does that" doesnt look good and with everyone disagreeing with everyone, plus talks of secret plans to keep May in power or rumours of a new election relatively soon it looks even worse.
Last edited by Dirtyshubb; 07-03-2017 at 01:36 PM.
Uzzy
(07-03-2017, 01:45 PM)
Uzzy's Avatar
Crazy to see serving cabinet ministers arguing in public against the current Government's policy. I guess they've no fear of party discipline or collective responsibility anymore, which is certainly something.

I suppose Hammond did launch a pretty thinly veiled attack on Johnson last week, so turnabout's fair pay.

Thread Tools