Student Protest

[Huguenot]

The 'general public' is still paying a larger proportion of the cost of HE, the student is only being asked to pay a proportion of it.

Only those earning over 100k per year are expected to pay off their complete loan, and even then it won't cover the cost of their degree.

Regarding the 300 quid example from Brendan, the point about consumption is that it's discretionary, whereas tax on the general population is not.

If the additional contribution doesn't come from the student, then income tax goes up.

Far better that a graduate on 60k a year misses out on a new dress, than the 50% of the population who will never benefit from a university education should miss out on an annual holiday or healthcare because of an unsustainable income tax hike.

This completely misses out all the other benefits of linking payments directly to the HE institution, rather than putting it through the whims of government.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not sure I would agree that whatever percentage of the population which doesn't go to Uni doesn't benefit from living in a country where more people do go

But in any case, this paying for stuff directly is great - when are we doing it to the NHS????

Can anyone who hasn't gone to Uni get some kind of payment from those that did? Retrospectively I mean.. seems only fair. I never went but was paying taxes when you were a student - c'mon, dig deep

[Brendan]

Gosh, I didn?t know that medical care, legal representation, housing and food were discretionary? I best tell my wife when I get home.

Anyway I just hope that with all these loans to pay back the dirty petulant students who don?t know what?s good for them have a little money left over to pay my pension.

[Huguenot]

There were comparatively fewer HE students under the old system SMG, so you may not have noticed.

However, if you aim to open the opportunity and quality to MORE students - some 50% of all 18-24 yr olds - there comes a massive increase in cost which requires a system rethink.

Either you do as some recommend - which is to limit university to either the wealthiest and most academically achieving - or you try and increase opportunity whilst sensibly and pragmatically addressing the extra cost.

As I said, the system doesn't reduce government HE spending, instead it makes sure that the burden for additional spending is carrried by those graduates who benefit most.

The irony is that to campaign against these changes means it's actually today's students that are campaigning to reduce the opportunity for future children.

[Brendan]

Ah yes a sort of, buy now pay later arrangement then. Maybe I could get my son a better Christmas present this year if we sort something like that out. He can start to pay me back a portion of his pocket money every week when he reaches 6.

[indiepanda]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> University eductation should be free, but with

> fewer courses and places. Degrees should be in

> academic subjects, for the brightest n%.

>

> I don't agree with students having to pay 9k a

> year tuition fees, but neither do I agree in

> paying for students who are just there for the

> ride.

Couldn't agree more.

Even when I trotted off to university some 20 years ago, I can recall meeting a guy down my local the summer before I went away who had just finished his first year at uni having got 2 Es in his A levels. He said the first year of the course was all about redoing what they should have learned while they were doing their A levels and he spent most of his time drinking, just scraping through the end of term exams. Not convinced the average non graduate would really see it as fair to have spent money funding that (or many graduates come to that!).

As someone from a working class background who benefitted hugely from the step up university gave me, I'd hate to see academically able people from poorer backgrounds being put off due to the fees. But I can't see how we can have so many young people going to university without them needing to pay more of the cost.

[Tony Rabbit]

Students Union Activist (co-ordinator) - retired. My daughter is a failure. She is not a member of the Students Union and can't throw squashy tomatoes. She did carry a placard but forgot to throw it (I hoped she might burn it but forgot the matches). Will she ever graduate - to flour bombs?

[tog_in_sox]

Thanks Huguenot for digging up the numbers. So basically on ?30k a yr (or future equivalent) I'll be committed to the "crippling" sum of ?68 per month with no real lender expectation to pay off the debt in 30 yrs so I just "tough" it out and have it written off? I can still save money in the meantime because as I understand it there will be a penalty for early redemption to discourage the wealthy from playing the system.

So to bring in figures from another story:

* Income: ?25,300, rising to ?33,000 in coming year

* Giving to charity: Everything above ?18,000

* Outgoings: ?5,000 rent, ?4,000 living expenses, rest on savings for house and holidays

* Plus: Eating out twice a fortnight, coffee once a week

* Interests: reading, listening to music, photography, meeting friends

* Gadgets: Apple Mac, iPhone, no television

I could be on ?21k, give away ?3k pa to charity, never have to repay my loan, enjoy the above limited lifestyle and still be putting aside money for a deposit on a house.

Methinks the protesting youth of today are beyond rational thought and I'd like my tax money back please!

SMG if I were asked to put up another ?70 per month for the sake of future generations of graduates I'd want to be damned sure I was funding useful graduates who would be contracted to serve the country for a minimum time. I'd gladly pay for more scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, legislators, foreign aid and development workers and teachers, but I outright refuse to pay for more media (and other non-options) students given the current glut of them, who believe friending, poking, blogging and tweeting is a credible contribution to society. I'd also pay for apprenticeships for more skilled plumbers, joiners, carpenters, tilers, roofers, thatchers, brickies, electricians and gas technicians; all of who are free to study part-time for degrees for their own edification whilst they continue their vocation.

[SeanMacGabhann]

If every man-jack of a layabout did nothing but waste 3 years at university studying xfactor theory, i'd still prefer it to them living at home, possibly claiming benefit because the economy is tanking. Just because... I believe they will learn from the experience and be more rounded as a result

But I know that I'm in a minority there and can't impose my will on other so I'll leave that one be

I think most people get the logic of many more numbers in HE requires a new funding system. And I haven't really argued against the governments proposal in any heartfelt way. I do think the sums are optimistic and people will end up worse off than that but on balance it's as workable as anything else

But I also understand why this generation is holding their elders to account and protesting. And when they do so and are told they should be grateful that's just rubbing their noses in it

People on here might well have gone to HE when far fewer people were doing so, but that was just luck of being born sooner. They didn't choose to be born earlier when HE applicant numbers were optimal. For whatever reason, they lucked out and had a free education. So a little more empathy from them and their peers in the government might just save us a few protests and talk of turning water cannons on people. We're not in Singapore... yet

[katie1997]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If every man-jack of a layabout did nothing but

> waste 3 years at university studying xfactor

> theory, i'd still prefer it to them living at

> home, possibly claiming benefit because the

> economy is tanking. Just because... I believe they

> will learn from the experience and be more rounded

> as a result

>

> But I know that I'm in a minority there and can't

> impose my will on other so I'll leave that one be

Phew so glad you ended with that sentence.

> I think most people get the logic of many more

> numbers in HE requires a new funding system.

Er yeah good point everyone does get it, apart from that twit Tony Blair who set the ball rolling with his stupid 'target' of 50% to go to university.

How were we meant to pay for that and crucially, why would we want to for people to study useless, rubbish subjects? What a load of cr@p.

I'm all in favour of education for all, of course its important for society but this system was unworkable.

[Dickensman]

Dear Students,

I am writing to inform you of the principle of which loans work.

If you ever have to repay a loan, or mortgage please make a note of the following.

All loans should be paid back at the minimum amount, which means the smallest payment permitted.

The loans should be repaid over the longest possible period.

So all you anal retentive types who have to have a tidy desk, and a neat pencil case, you will need to live with the untidyness of not clearing the loan at the earliest opportunity.

The reason for this procedure is to allow the continuing inflation which consecutive governments insist is 3 or 4% but you mum and dad knows it is more like 30% on quantative easing years and something closer to half that during non-quantative easing years.

The wonderful thing about this inflation is that it erodes the value of your loans.

Yes, that is correct it actually nibbles away continuously to lower its repayment value.

If you can imagine your loan as a mountain of sand and as the wind blows it reduces your mound but it needs time to do so.

The longer you can live with this lot hanging over your head, the more it shrinks.

It will never disappear, but when you are grumpy old gits, like this scribe, you will be able to clear it off with a couple of weeks overtime.

For example when I was your age I could buy 4 gallons of petrol for a pound.

Fast forward that concept to when you all reach the leaky bladder stage, a gallon of petrol will be a hundred quid.

Your earnings will be a quarter of a million per annum, and your loans will be a mere fart in a collander.

Yours faithfully,

Dickensman

[Brendan]

tog_in_sox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks Huguenot for digging up the numbers. So

> basically on ?30k a yr (or future equivalent)

> I'll be committed to the "crippling" sum of ?68

> per month with no real lender expectation to pay

> off the debt in 30 yrs so I just "tough" it out

> and have it written off? I can still save money

> in the meantime because as I understand it there

> will be a penalty for early redemption to

> discourage the wealthy from playing the system.

>

> So to bring in figures from another story:

> * Income: ?25,300, rising to ?33,000 in coming

> year

> * Giving to charity: Everything above ?18,000

> * Outgoings: ?5,000 rent, ?4,000 living

> expenses, rest on savings for house and holidays

> * Plus: Eating out twice a fortnight, coffee

> once a week

> * Interests: reading, listening to music,

> photography, meeting friends

> * Gadgets: Apple Mac, iPhone, no television

>

> I could be on ?21k, give away ?3k pa to charity,

> never have to repay my loan, enjoy the above

> limited lifestyle and still be putting aside money

> for a deposit on a house.

>

> Methinks the protesting youth of today are beyond

> rational thought and I'd like my tax money back

> please!

Yes we all read the same article. The problem is that the sums don?t add up. Even if you assume that you can only pay ?416 a month rent and ?333 a month ?living expenses? which could only just cover bills, phone, insurance, transport and such (not sure if this guy eats and wears clothes) they still don?t add up.

Firstly you have to deduct 10% pension contributions which are a necessity for any new graduate who would like to avoid spending the last 20 years of their life living in a one roomed flat, eating dog food and being labelled a scrounger.

Then income tax.

We?re already down to under that ?18K

Then at least ?1000 a year council tax.

Which brings us to ?16077.50

Then assuming this guy wants to buy a house in 10 years time he will have to be saving at least ?4000 a year.

So he now has ?12077.50 a year minus his ?9000 rent and living expenses which is a whopping ?3077.50 p/a or ?256.45 a month which probably just about covers his 2 dinners, 4 coffees and the payments on his Apple Mac.

How much was he giving to charity again?

And all this is working off rents that are comparable to those of someone living in a shared house. What if this person would like to get married, have a family etc? Or don?t they get to do that?

But all in all I?m sure people out there working every hour god sends and still not being able to make ends meet appreciate your self-righteous opinions on the reality of their lives.

[Brendan]

Oh yeah and I suppose you'll have to find some money there to pay back a student loan.

[Huguenot]

That's a misdirection Brendan, if future student you (meaning 'one') weren't paying your student loan, your income tax would be higher. The net difference is minimal, and it would be paid by people who were poorer than you and didn't get the benefits of a universtity education.

Now that's unfair.

Especially as those poorer than you that didn't get a university education are still paying some of your education costs anyway.

[Brendan]

eh?

[Brendan]

To steer this off in a different direction, in this article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/14/student-protesters-british-left , Bill Bragg puts the current student protestors on a pedestal by saying this about them;

?This is the first generation to have the opportunity to create a form of socialism that is not tainted by totalitarianism.?

My question is, philosophically like, can any form of socialism function without totalitarianism. Does socialism not require centralised organisation which by its very nature means centalised power which once again by its nature becomes totalitarian?

(Just to preempt the predictable let?s assume that ideological capitalism enforced by a wealthy elite is just as objectionable a form of totalitarianism.)

[mockney piers]

You're heading down a philosophical path which many called neo-feudalism.

I'm not a big fan of the term or the concept. Although the shadowy hand of the nefarious interests of huge organisations can be found in many places, I do think this is something the masses have brought on ourselves quite willingly. Capital has capitalised (boom boom) on and often exploited the opportunities afforded them by, well, by us.

[Brendan]

Fair enough but right now my liberalism is waning somewhat and I don?t feel generous enough to take responsibility for everyone else being a fukwad.

[huncamunca]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To steer this off in a different direction, in

> this article,

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/1

> 4/student-protesters-british-left , Bill Bragg

> puts the current student protestors on a pedestal

> by saying this about them;

>

> ?This is the first generation to have the

> opportunity to create a form of socialism that is

> not tainted by totalitarianism.?

>

> My question is, philosophically like, can any form

> of socialism function without totalitarianism.

> Does socialism not require centralised

> organisation which by its very nature means

> centalised power which once again by its nature

> becomes totalitarian?

>

> (Just to preempt the predictable let?s assume that

> ideological capitalism enforced by a wealthy elite

> is just as objectionable a form of

> totalitarianism.)

Of course not.

[tog_in_sox]

Oh dear Brendan :(

?1000+ on council tax? Although I pay ?950 in not the dearest or cheapest area for a 2 bed flat more than sufficient for 2 adults + child the tax could be halved as it'd be split between 2 earners.

10% on pension? If they chose to have one in the first decade of their career then why your "mandatory" 10%? I'm not subject to such.

Are you saying the couple need ?40k or ?80k deposit?

If it wasn't possible he wouldn't have already managed a year. Besides he is pragmatic about having to make adjustments to his budget and giving based on the uncontrollable factors affecting his costs. His aim? ?1m in his lifetime.

My point was that much can be done with around the average wage so the ?30 or ?70 being asked is not a lot at all to sacrifice. It's only when you insist on the likes of ?30 pcm for fags, ?80 pcm on drinks, ?30 pcm to cost of going to gigs or festivals, ?40 on latest game title, etc that you have to admit that the cost is small.

Bemoaning the priviledges of the past without acknowledging the harsh realities of a student proportion 10x the % that went to free Uni, in a larger (and growing) population as well, is petulant. Take into account the inflated costs of providing this eductation and their willful ignorance swells and the suspicion of blind reactionaries comes to the fore.

Self-righteous? Nope, just trying to establish a realistic context. But if it needs to be said, I've had debts far greater than those they face, from which I could have "run away" by declaing bankruptcy but I chose to accept responsibility for my spending (not even investment) and paid it down by paying hundreds per month for over a decade. My wage? Not much more than the average wage.

If Billy Bragg's point is that this generation will create a better future where rank capitalism in the form of selfish indulgence and self-promotion were burnt at the stake in favour of humble wants for personal gain and huge compassion for the truly needy across society then I'm all for it. Somehow though I truly believe that most of them will be as self-absorbed and self-serving as any previous generation. Cynic is my middle name though I wish it were not so.

[mockney piers]

We actually have a stagnant populous. It's only growing through government policy making net immigration positive. And that's being done precisely because the population is stagnant so we need fresh blood to pay for those services an ageing population can't pay for.

Just pointing out that growing population has been mentioned several times as a reason for this policy, when actually it's the opposite.

[Huguenot]

What you'll be looking for Brenda, is anarcho-syndicalism

[mockney piers]

I vote for the anarcho-syndicalists at every Spanish General Election.

A beautifulmidea, but one that relies totally on the idea of social responsibilities over rights.

Sadly that seems to be almost completely devoid these days, it's all me me me now isn't it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

That's narcissistic opera singers for you

[Huguenot]

I don't know who said growing population was a reason for this policy, I agree it's a complete nonsense.

There is however a desire to see 50% of all 18 to 24 year olds in HE - a shift from 1.8m today to about 3m.

I can see that not everyone agrees with this, but to be honest, there's a limited demand for blue collar workers in a technologically advanced society, and I don't think the answer to this is to go Pol Pot over everyone's ass.

Other stated reasons for the changes include:

**

Improving standards. UK is slipping rapidly downhill in the global HE stakes, and now sits in 15th position behind such luminaries as Poland and the Czech Republic. It's a cringeworthy national embarassment and demands more appropriate and competitive investment. Current tax revenue cannot acccommodate this, nor apply it appropriately. Politicians don't run good schools.

Students deserve better choices, including the option for successful Universities to capitalise on their achievements and grow to meet demand.

Everyone should have the opportunity to go to HE if they wish, and they should do it on a level playing field (current funding levels do not allow for this).

No-one should have to pay unless they can afford it (clearly Brenda and I disagree whether 60 quid a month is affordable for someone on 30k a year.)

Payments should be both affordable and proportionate (in line with the investment they've demanded in their education)

The terms of the education should not be restrictive (it should apply ro full and part-time students on whatever terms they wish).

**

Clearly there are those that disagree with these sentiments. Some opponents views (sometimes alluded to on this forum) could be summarised as "it's fine as it is, we don't need to be better than Poland, not everybody should have the choice of going to university, we can afford it through general taxation if we restrict entry and stop investing, students should study where they're told to study, and graduates on 30k can't afford 60 quid a month."

I clearly agree with the Browne approach, I think these are sensible and worthy ambitions. I'm sorry about the 60 quid a month, but frankly that's just one piss up and a couple of taxi rides.

If students start stamping around threatening OAPS and trashing our high streets over 60 quid a month then I think they're a bunch of canutes, and frankly they deserve to be both patronised and abused for their pompous self-regard.