The Tories' Little Helpers Fall Apart

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggybunnet

 

Thought you'd like that... it was why I threw it in at the end; plus we all know that you're on the turn and are keen to defect to our side But just remember next time you're in the JH stand, we're all around you!

 

Remember mate, "together we can make make the future, but it starts with leaving the past." (Bernie Winters talking to Schnorbitz the dog around 1985. Barbara Windsor once dived into the pool to save the dog at a party at Terry Scott's house. This is apparently true. Trivia to lighten up a cold Sunday.)

 

Viva La Revolución and warmest regards!

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

Is it worth pointing out that the IFS says the proposed changes are more progressive than both the current system and the Browne Review?

 

People really don't understand the effect on students of this new fees package. For all but the wealthiest the change in the actual fee is completely meaningless because it's a graduate tax by another name at 9% on income over £21k for 30 years after which the slate is wiped clean (i.e. underwritten by the government, or the general taxpayer). The bottom 23% of graduate earners will be better off and someone who earns £30kpa over the course of their life will contribute a mere £2k more over the 30 years that they pay their graduate contribution than they do just now. I am absolutely astonished that anyone could claim that this would deter the poorest from applying for tertiary education in England.

 

The student tuition debt figure is a complete paper exercise. It has absolutely zero effect on their ability to get a mortgage and to all intents and purposes it is not a debt but a 30 year graduate tax with a total contribution limit.

 

That Miliband has refused to reverse the proposals says it all. His opposition, the NUS opposition and the opposition of the left generally is based on, to varying degrees, political opportunism and fundamental misunderstandings of the way the system works.

 

Anyway, if you want to see what students have to say the other side of the fence of the ignorant majority (and I use the term ignorant not in the pejorative, but the factual sense) take a look here: clicky

[Blackpool Jags]

Setting a repayment threshold figure of £21k, or whatever, is not an incentive to enter into Higher Education unless you're fom a well-off background; that's a recognised fact, otherwise governments would've been doing this for the past hundred years and beyond. The prospect of a lifetime of debt is usually the difference between the poorer kids opting for Uni or a McJob. I know more than a few teenagers for whom this has been the case.

 

We're the 7th richest country in the world, FFS, and that despite having probably the most relaxed approach to expecting the pornographically rich to pay even a wee bit of tax now and again. We CAN afford to provide free compulsory and higher education for those who want it. The students understand this; MOST right-thinking people understand this; and the lily-livered wretches formerly known as Liberal Democrat MPs also understand this. As has been eloquently illustrated above, the Tories will steal your teeth and come back for your gums when you're asleep but, Clegg's lower-than-a-snake's-tits capitulation has been treachery (to his own voters) on a hitherto uncontemplated scale.

 

Leading Glib Dem, Chris Huhne, on today's Politics Show, reeled off the new phantasmagorical mantra that his party will emerge all the stronger for this mini-crisis, particularly in the eyes of the electorate. Wow! I hope he realises that this sort of neo-politics leads, ultimately, to him having to pay for his own mental health care and medication.

 

 

Tories GTF and take your ho's with you.

[Woodstock Jag]

Setting a repayment threshold figure of £21k, or whatever, is not an incentive to enter into Higher Education unless you're from a well-off background; that's a recognised fact, otherwise governments would've been doing this for the past hundred years and beyond.

 

Sorry, but that makes virtually no sense at all. The repayment threshold is being increased by £6k. How could it possibly have been fair for students to start paying back for their education when they were barely on the breadline? At least £21k is actually near the national median wage. This "otherwise other governments would have been doing this" is also a complete non-sequitur as we have an unprecedented proportion of school leavers at University compared with 20-30 years ago.

 

The prospect of a lifetime of debt is usually the difference between the poorer kids opting for Uni or a McJob. I know more than a few teenagers for whom this has been the case.

 

Then they're being sold the wrong information. To all intents and purposes tuition fees do not form a debt under these proposals because the slate is wiped clean after 30 years. The poorest graduates won't pay a single penny for their education and the bottom 23% earners will pay less than they do now.

 

We're the 7th richest country in the world, FFS, and that despite having probably the most relaxed approach to expecting the pornographically rich to pay even a wee bit of tax now and again.

 

Never mind the fact that the cold hard statistics show the greatest tax burden was on the richest in this country when the top rate of income tax was at its lowest. The 50% tax rate is estimated to COST the treasury about £3 billion versus doing away with it.

 

We CAN afford to provide free compulsory and higher education for those who want it. The students understand this; MOST right-thinking people understand this; and the lily-livered wretches formerly known as Liberal Democrat MPs also understand this. As has been eloquently illustrated above, the Tories will steal your teeth and come back for your gums when you're asleep but, Clegg's lower-than-a-snake's-tits capitulation has been treachery (to his own voters) on a hitherto uncontemplated scale.

 

What a load of claptrap. We can afford Trident but it doesn't mean that either we should have it or that the general taxpayer should bear the cost. Primary and secondary education is compulsory and necessary to equip young people with the basic skills to look after themselves and get into the workplace. Tertiary education, especially University education, is not. It is hugely advantageous: yes. Indeed the typical graduate earns more than £100k over their working life more than the non-graduate. It is a service, and one which typically confers a massive individual benefit, and for that the graduate should pay towards it.

 

Leading Glib Dem, Chris Huhne, on today's Politics Show, reeled off the new phantasmagorical mantra that his party will emerge all the stronger for this mini-crisis, particularly in the eyes of the electorate. Wow! I hope he realises that this sort of neo-politics leads, ultimately, to him having to pay for his own mental health care and medication.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz sensationalist nonsense.

 

Tories GTF and take your ho's with you.

 

Tax and Spend Labour GTF.

[jaggybunnet]

Is it worth pointing out that the IFS says the proposed changes are more progressive than both the current system and the Browne Review?

 

People really don't understand the effect on students of this new fees package. For all but the wealthiest the change in the actual fee is completely meaningless because it's a graduate tax by another name at 9% on income over £21k for 30 years after which the slate is wiped clean (i.e. underwritten by the government, or the general taxpayer). The bottom 23% of graduate earners will be better off and someone who earns £30kpa over the course of their life will contribute a mere £2k more over the 30 years that they pay their graduate contribution than they do just now. I am absolutely astonished that anyone could claim that this would deter the poorest from applying for tertiary education in England.

 

The student tuition debt figure is a complete paper exercise. It has absolutely zero effect on their ability to get a mortgage and to all intents and purposes it is not a debt but a 30 year graduate tax with a total contribution limit.

 

That Miliband has refused to reverse the proposals says it all. His opposition, the NUS opposition and the opposition of the left generally is based on, to varying degrees, political opportunism and fundamental misunderstandings of the way the system works.

 

Anyway, if you want to see what students have to say the other side of the fence of the ignorant majority (and I use the term ignorant not in the pejorative, but the factual sense) take a look here: clicky

 

 

[jaggybunnet]

Setting a repayment threshold figure of £21k, or whatever, is not an incentive to enter into Higher Education unless you're fom a well-off background; that's a recognised fact, otherwise governments would've been doing this for the past hundred years and beyond. The prospect of a lifetime of debt is usually the difference between the poorer kids opting for Uni or a McJob. I know more than a few teenagers for whom this has been the case.

 

 

 

We're the 7th richest country in the world, FFS, and that despite having probably the most relaxed approach to expecting the pornographically rich to pay even a wee bit of tax now and again. We CAN afford to provide free compulsory and higher education for those who want it. The students understand this; MOST right-thinking people understand this; and the lily-livered wretches formerly known as Liberal Democrat MPs also understand this. As has been eloquently illustrated above, the Tories will steal your teeth and come back for your gums when you're asleep but, Clegg's lower-than-a-snake's-tits capitulation has been treachery (to his own voters) on a hitherto uncontemplated scale.

 

 

 

Leading Glib Dem, Chris Huhne, on today's Politics Show, reeled off the new phantasmagorical mantra that his party will emerge all the stronger for this mini-crisis, particularly in the eyes of the electorate. Wow! I hope he realises that this sort of neo-politics leads, ultimately, to him having to pay for his own mental health care and medication.

 

 

Tories GTF and take your ho's with you.

 

it doesn't matter how rich your parents are its how much THAT student earns

 

There is NO such thing as FREE education, it has to be paid for by some one, so why not the student if they ever do pay it back anyway

 

Blackpool Jags, I know you hate the Tories but this rubbish above is beyond belief, go and see a doctor and get him to get that chip off your shoulder it def holding to back.

[Blackpool Jags]

I've no intention of responding, sectionally, in the way that my facts, set out previously, were replied to. But, every response of this sort from the youth section of the neo-con movement convinces me more each day that the post-Thatcherite generation has been conditioned to seeing every societal value in coarse, transactional terms.

 

To our good fortune, the previous generations of class fighters from the Jarrow marchers, to the Upper Clyde sit-in protesters to the national anti-Poll Tax alliance, saw the progressive development of society and its members as an end in itself. Care of the elderly, the ill, the genuinely needy and the very young were altruistic goals which could be attained because they were the right things for an advanced society to aim for.

 

We were probably never more skint - in modern times - than during the ten years following our defeat of Hitler's nazis. But, we found a way to create a National Health Service free and at the point of need not greed. Similar principles and values led to quantum improvents in Education, Social Services, Local Government services and the creation of our welfare state, despite its negative press in modern times.

 

While not expecting everybody to convert to socialism by tomorrow afternoon, I think there's enough intellince on here from the 'opposition' to acknowledge the downside of seeing everything in transactional terms and eschewing the excesses of capitalist greed. After all, it's purely down to capitalist greed that capitalism itself is in such a rotten mess.

[Woodstock Jag]

it doesn't matter how rich your parents are its how much THAT student earns

 

Exactly! If you want to address the issue of widening access to those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, the retrospective graduate contribution is blatantly not the problem.

 

The real problem is that in an effort to get people from poorer backgrounds into University, they have made it a free-for all. In order to get more poor students in, they've been letting academically mediocre students from slightly more affluent backgrounds in, which doesn't achieve anything.

 

The solution is to give up on these ludicrous 50% school leavers at Uni targets. Get it back down to about 10-20% of school leavers, invest more back into the College programme so lots of school leavers can learn vocational skills. Set up the system so that those who benefit most from tertiary education pay the most, but those who gain little salary benefit should pay less or nothing at all. The new proposals only tackle half the battle. The University numbers are STILL going up and Colleges and Apprenticeships have been woefully stagnant for about 20 years.

 

There is NO such thing as FREE education, it has to be paid for by some one, so why not the student if they ever do pay it back anyway

 

Exactly. Electricity bills don't pay themselves. Lecturers don't work for gravel. Library books don't grow on trees. It's completely unfair to put the burden of higher education onto the general taxpayer, effectively making the poor pay for the University education of the super-rich's children through a state bureaucracy.

 

Blackpool Jags, I know you hate the Tories but this rubbish above is beyond belief, go and see a doctor and get him to get that chip off your shoulder it def holding to back.

 

 

More than a smidgeon of truth though.

[jaggybunnet]

I've no intention of responding, sectionally, in the way that my facts, set out previously, were replied to. But, every response of this sort from the youth section of the neo-con movement convinces me more each day that the post-Thatcherite generation has been conditioned to seeing every societal value in coarse, transactional terms.

 

To our good fortune, the previous generations of class fighters from the Jarrow marchers, to the Upper Clyde sit-in protesters to the national anti-Poll Tax alliance, saw the progressive development of society and its members as an end in itself. Care of the elderly, the ill, the genuinely needy and the very young were altruistic goals which could be attained because they were the right things for an advanced society to aim for.

 

We were probably never more skint - in modern times - than during the ten years following our defeat of Hitler's nazis. But, we found a way to create a National Health Service free and at the point of need not greed. Similar principles and values led to quantum improvents in Education, Social Services, Local Government services and the creation of our welfare state, despite its negative press in modern times.

 

sorry, wrong again, it saw Labour spend money it didnt have with no thought to the future.

 

While not expecting everybody to convert to socialism by tomorrow afternoon, I think there's enough intellince on here from the 'opposition' to acknowledge the downside of seeing everything in transactional terms and eschewing the excesses of capitalist greed. After all, it's purely down to capitalist greed that capitalism itself is in such a rotten mess.

 

 

bloody hell, i hope that not me????

 

sorry Blackpool Jags, socialism is a dream that is constantly proved not to work, but dont let that stop you while the rest of us carry on with the realities of life today.

Edited December 12, 2010 by jaggybunnet

[gianlucatoni]

it doesn't matter how rich your parents are its how much THAT student earns

 

There is NO such thing as FREE education, it has to be paid for by some one, so why not the student if they ever do pay it back anyway

 

Blackpool Jags, I know you hate the Tories but this rubbish above is beyond belief, go and see a doctor and get him to get that chip off your shoulder it def holding to back.

 

 

Labour shadow cabinet minister on TV this morning (andy burnham?) saying that labour's alternative plans for a graduate tax would have graduates paying back more - in truth all the main parties are absolute phannies and the ridiculous cutbacks on the universities funding are to blame - education tuition should be free for all and the scot nats appreciate that although I think funding wise they'll have to cave in on that one soon as well.

 

Another factor has not been considered - say you're doing a 3 year honours down south followed by a masters - then followed by a year at teacher training ... assuming 5 years at the max fees you'll also have 5 years student loans to taqke out to subsidise your living costs so you'll be lucky to be getting out your "lifelong learning" experience short of £70k after adding in yearly inflation on those figures ... now take into account the justification of charging graduates is that they'll earn about £100k over a lfetime more than "Mr Average UK person" and it hardly seems worthwhile given that in the 5 years you're studying Joe-Average is out working and earning the £70k you're racking up in debt at uni ... while in your lifetime (still paying back your uni fees when your own kids are off to uni themselves anyone?) you'll pay back significantly more than the £70k if you have a well paid job of just £21k.

 

It's a fkin farce.

[Woodstock Jag]

I've no intention of responding, sectionally, in the way that my facts, set out previously, were replied to. But, every response of this sort from the youth section of the neo-con movement convinces me more each day that the post-Thatcherite generation has been conditioned to seeing every societal value in coarse, transactional terms.

 

Nothing neo-con about me at all. I am an economic neo-liberal.

 

Of course University is a service. Its primary, dominant and overwhelming purpose is for the benefit of the individual student. Society only exists to the extent that individual interests coalesce by circumstance and mutuality. To suggest otherwise is to make it a massive social experiment that coerces people to conform to a form of tyranny masquerading as the non-existent general will.

 

To our good fortune, the previous generations of class fighters from the Jarrow marchers, to the Upper Clyde sit-in protesters to the national anti-Poll Tax alliance, saw the progressive development of society and its members as an end in itself. Care of the elderly, the ill, the genuinely needy and the very young were altruistic goals which could be attained because they were the right things for an advanced society to aim for.

 

Altruism is the product of emotion. It is the result of individual morality derived from reason and emotion. It does not necessitate that the state does and funds everything and it does not necessitate coercion by the masses against everyone else.

 

We were probably never more skint - in modern times - than during the ten years following our defeat of Hitler's Nazis. But, we found a way to create a National Health Service free and at the point of need not greed. Similar principles and values led to quantum improvements in Education, Social Services, Local Government services and the creation of our welfare state, despite its negative press in modern times.

 

The situation is completely different now than it was then. There was rampant protectionism, Marshall Aid and a flawed Keynesian consensus, the pain of which was felt 25 years later when people realised that actually a state monopoly is the worst of all kinds of monopoly because it commands the 'legitimate' use of force.

 

What we are now seeing is that we need to accept the government isn't the answer. People are not cured because the government steals your money. People are cured because doctors apply their excellence. People are not educated because the state socially engineers the conditions available to make it happen. People are educated because there are people who are intelligent and knowledgeable who are willing and able to impart their wisdom.

 

Welfare is absolutely fine. The problem is the state doing it, as it coerces and makes it happen because the elite want it to happen to protect their position. If welfare is to happen, it should do so because people think it is the right thing to do. And those who do not think it is the right thing to do shouldn't be made to participate in it.

 

While not expecting everybody to convert to socialism by tomorrow afternoon, I think there's enough intelligence on here from the 'opposition' to acknowledge the downside of seeing everything in transactional terms and eschewing the excesses of capitalist greed. After all, it's purely down to capitalist greed that capitalism itself is in such a rotten mess.

 

Capitalism is not greed. This is caricature nonsense. EVERYTHING is a transaction. The only differences are the emotion and the reasoning the individuals apply in choosing to enter such a transaction.

[Woodstock Jag]

Labour shadow cabinet minister on TV this morning (andy burnham?) saying that labour's alternative plans for a graduate tax would have graduates paying back more - in truth all the main parties are absolute phannies and the ridiculous cutbacks on the universities funding are to blame - education tuition should be free for all and the scot nats appreciate that although I think funding wise they'll have to cave in on that one soon as well.

 

This has absolutely no basis in reality at all. Education does not cost nothing. Lecture theatres use light, heating, computers use electricity, tutors need an income, roofs need repaired, libraries need books. Things cost money. If we lived in a world of infinite resources (here's the clue, no we don't) then things could be free. The reality is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

As a student I think it is perfectly fair that graduates pay the cost of their education. I don't think it's at all fair that someone who leaves school at 16 and works hard as e.g. an apprentice, then has to pay taxes so the state can pay for the University education of the children of millionaires.

 

Another factor has not been considered - say you're doing a 3 year honours down south followed by a masters - then followed by a year at teacher training ... assuming 5 years at the max fees you'll also have 5 years student loans to take out to subsidise your living costs so you'll be lucky to be getting out your "lifelong learning" experience short of £70k after adding in yearly inflation on those figures ... now take into account the justification of charging graduates is that they'll earn about £100k over a lifetime more than "Mr Average UK person" and it hardly seems worthwhile given that in the 5 years you're studying Joe-Average is out working and earning the £70k you're racking up in debt at uni ... while in your lifetime (still paying back your uni fees when your own kids are off to uni themselves anyone?) you'll pay back significantly more than the £70k if you have a well paid job of just £21k.

 

Okay let's just bust the myths in this.

 

Tuition fees are not a debt to all intents and purposes for anyone except the absolute highest of graduate earners. Under the new system the slate is wiped clean after 30 years from graduation. That means it is effectively a tax on earnings over £21k. It is a graduate contribution linked to earnings with a total contribution cap which rises according to interest rates. It is NOT a debt for the purposes of mortgage calculation. It is NOT a debt for the purposes of applying for any other credit. The only debt a student will have after going to Uni is for their maintenance, and that is more than able to be mitigated by improved salaries and, heaven forbid, by working part-time during your degree.

 

The £100k over the course of the working lifetime INCLUDES the amount lost by not being in full-time employment as a student.

 

If we take the teacher in your example, they will ONLY pay back in line with their income. If someone earns about £21k (rising with inflation) every year for 30 years under this new scheme they pay back £8 a month. Yep. That's right. £8 a month. That's not even a round of drinks.

 

It's a fkin farce.

 

If you think it's a farce that someone earning the median national wage and who has benefited from University education has to pay the equivalent of the price of a good second hand hatchback over 30 years by means of reparation, then fair enough. I don't.

[gianlucatoni]

The world according to WJ is a sad place indeed.

 

See you at the next election - if you even think of walking up to my door with your Tory leaflets I'll have my dug trained to rip your deluded baws aff!

[Woodstock Jag]

The world according to WJ is a sad place indeed.

 

What's sad about what I've said?

 

See you at the next election - if you even think of walking up to my door with your Tory leaflets I'll have my dug trained to rip your deluded baws aff!

 

I'm not a Tory. Nice try though.

[jaggybunnet]

 

It's a fkin farce.

 

 

no its life after labour have been in power and have bankrupted us

[GrantB]

Woddy, you remind me of William Hague when he gave his speech to the Tory conference aged approx 12.

 

You're a young guy, get out there drinking and pulling burds instead of writing paragraph upon paragraph of politics on a football forum.

[GrantB]

no its life after labour have been in power and have bankrupted us

 

And you Mr Bunnett, it's your birthday. Get off the forum and have a celebratory drink

[Woodstock Jag]

Woddy, you remind me of William Hague when he gave his speech to the Tory conference aged approx 12.

 

You're a young guy, get out there drinking and pulling burds instead of writing paragraph upon paragraph of politics on a football forum.

 

Whoever said the art of age-based condescension was dead?

 

Edit: oh and Hague was 16.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[John Blutarsky]

I don't think it's at all fair that someone who leaves school at 16 and works hard as e.g. an apprentice, then has to pay taxes so the state can pay for the University education of the children of millionaires.

 

hang on there fella, didn't you just state that you were an economic neo-liberal?

[Woodstock Jag]

hang on there fella, didn't you just state that you were an economic neo-liberal?

 

Yes...

 

Do you know what a neo-liberal is?

[John Blutarsky]

Yes...

 

Do you know what a neo-liberal is?

 

yes. someone who takes himself far too seriously.

[Woodstock Jag]

yes. someone who takes himself far too seriously.

 

So that's a "no" then

[John Blutarsky]

So that's a "no" then

 

nope. simply a polite echo of the advice dispensed by mr grantb. you won't get a pissing contest here, young man.

[Blackpool Jags]

 

You're a young guy, get out there drinking and pulling burds instead of writing paragraph upon paragraph of politics on a football forum.

 

 

yes. someone who takes himself far too seriously.

 

Kwality.

 

Btw, Jaggybunnet - happy birthday. Have a drink on me fella.

 

If I ever bump into youse guys, it'll be beer and no politics, OK!

 

 

 

 

Cos you know deep down we're right.

[jaggybunnet]

 

 

 

 

Kwality.

 

Btw, Jaggybunnet - happy birthday. Have a drink on me fella.

 

If I ever bump into youse guys, it'll be beer and no politics, OK!

 

 

 

 

Cos you know deep down we're right.

 

 

i am up for that