Scotland's Uni Funding System Faces Legal Challenge

[Blackpool Jags]

As it says. The tube in question's name is Phil Shiner. I think he deserves one for his attempts to roll back one of the more progressive political acts of our time. He apparently started out representing two students south of the border against the hefty tuition fees imposed by Westminster. But presumably a bang on the head recently prompted him to turn his attention - rather perversely for an alleged human rights lawyer - to seeking to undermine the Scottish system.

 

Message alert: if you really are seeking parity and not attention, Mr Shiner, attack the English system and use the Scottish system as the model you want to see UK-wide, not the other way about. Otherwise just clear off and leave things alone. It's not complicated.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14607122

[Woodstock Jag]

There's less than no chance it's breaking the law. I'm pretty sure there have already been European cases that ruled the tuition anomaly within the UK was not a breach of Convention Rights. Indeed the English have been charged to study in Scotland for several years now.

 

Of course, no students are actually made to pay tuition fees and they don't inherit actual "debt" from the Student Loans Company paying them. Graduates taking-up state support are entered into a 30-year supplementary income tax programme for earnings over a level roughly the median national income with an upper-contributions limit. With the exception of the SNP, everyone in mainstream politics now seems to admit that to keep up with other countries' institutions we need some sort of graduate contribution. The question is how to make it fairest.

 

I'd personally be going for something pretty similar to what they have down south, but with a few small changes. Firstly I'd remove the limits on voluntary overpayments back, as that arrangement discourages young people from paying back things they perceive as debts over and above the infamous minimum payment. Secondly I'd prefer that the interest rate (or as it should really be regarded, the upper contribution limit) should rise in-line with inflation, rather than +3%.

 

It's fair that those who are given the opportunity of a University education are those who ought to undertake a proportionally higher burden for its upkeep, but which reflects their ability to pay. That's the social contract in action.

 

Edit to add another thought: it's worth pointing out that institutions within the EU are required to treat students coming from another member state as though they were domiciled in the relevant jurisdiction. Thus if Scotland were to become independent, then they would no longer be allowed to charge English students without also charging Scottish students and all other EU students, and at the same rate.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Meister Jag]

There's less than no chance it's breaking the law. I'm pretty sure there have already been European cases that ruled the tuition anomaly within the UK was not a breach of Convention Rights. Indeed the English have been charged to study in Scotland for several years now.

 

Of course, no students are actually made to pay tuition fees and they don't inherit actual "debt" from the Student Loans Company paying them. Graduates taking-up state support are entered into a 30-year supplementary income tax programme for earnings over a level roughly the median national income with an upper-contributions limit. With the exception of the SNP, everyone in mainstream politics now seems to admit that to keep up with other countries' institutions we need some sort of graduate contribution. The question is how to make it fairest.

 

I'd personally be going for something pretty similar to what they have down south, but with a few small changes. Firstly I'd remove the limits on voluntary overpayments back, as that arrangement discourages young people from paying back things they perceive as debts over and above the infamous minimum payment. Secondly I'd prefer that the interest rate (or as it should really be regarded, the upper contribution limit) should rise in-line with inflation, rather than +3%.

 

It's fair that those who are given the opportunity of a University education are those who ought to undertake a proportionally higher burden for its upkeep, but which reflects their ability to pay. That's the social contract in action.

 

Edit to add another thought: it's worth pointing out that institutions within the EU are required to treat students coming from another member state as though they were domiciled in the relevant jurisdiction. Thus if Scotland were to become independent, then they would no longer be allowed to charge English students without also charging Scottish students and all other EU students, and at the same rate.

 

Simple answer to a simple problem: tax the rich until you hear their a***s squeak. They have a moral obligation to give something back to those they've exploited for so long... Successive governments have not had the balls to make them pay - and I include the SNP in that rant.

 

My own view is that education makes inequality more socially acceptable by broadcasting the myth that it offers every student an equal chance. Nowadays in societies such as Britain all children are entitled to state education; which suggests equality. But look at what happened just the other week and the flaws in the system become very apparent and the myth is exposed.

 

The argument is that those who achieve top qualifications go on to top jobs and that they deserve their success because they are smarter and more hard working then their peers. The education system promotes this myth and leads people to think along such lines simply by its existence. However, the truth is that your chances of educational success are closely related to the class of your parents. The higher the social class of your parents so the greater the duration of your stay in education and the higher your qualifications will probably be. When looked at critically, the system has the cards stacked in favour of the ruling elite and few kids from the wrong side of the fence will ever get the chance to prosper.

 

I know this is a touchy subject but making or even suggesting that education has a rich man's price tag on it simply puts many off and ensures that they never get that chance. this challenge is at best ill conceived and surely stands little chance of success. Hopefully a judge will look at this and strike out the proceedings before they start; thus saving the public purse some dosh it can (apparently) ill afford.

 

Woody, feel free to have a go mate...

[Steven H]

Simple answer to a simple problem: tax the rich until you hear their a***s squeak. They have a moral obligation to give something back to those they've exploited for so long... Successive governments have not had the balls to make them pay - and I include the SNP in that rant.

 

My own view is that education makes inequality more socially acceptable by broadcasting the myth that it offers every student an equal chance. Nowadays in societies such as Britain all children are entitled to state education; which suggests equality. But look at what happened just the other week and the flaws in the system become very apparent and the myth is exposed.

 

The argument is that those who achieve top qualifications go on to top jobs and that they deserve their success because they are smarter and more hard working then their peers. The education system promotes this myth and leads people to think along such lines simply by its existence. However, the truth is that your chances of educational success are closely related to the class of your parents. The higher the social class of your parents so the greater the duration of your stay in education and the higher your qualifications will probably be. When looked at critically, the system has the cards stacked in favour of the ruling elite and few kids from the wrong side of the fence will ever get the chance to prosper.

 

I know this is a touchy subject but making or even suggesting that education has a rich man's price tag on it simply puts many off and ensures that they never get that chance. this challenge is at best ill conceived and surely stands little chance of success. Hopefully a judge will look at this and strike out the proceedings before they start; thus saving the public purse some dosh it can (apparently) ill afford.

 

Woody, feel free to have a go mate...

 

From my understanding the current system is in place for exactly the reasons you highlight as being problematic, to try to offer more chances to those from less well-off backgrounds. As it stands Scottish students pay very little (infact I paid nothing towards my tuition fees and only owe my student loan) in comparison to students from England and if this challenge is succesful (and I dont believe it will be) then there would be an influx of students taking up places at our universities for the simple reason that it's cheaper. Like Blackpool Jags said, if you want to challenge anything challenge the English system and demand parity with Scotland.

 

If in the unlikely event this challenge is successful then I see the things you mention becoming the major problem it once was, because Scotland will simply adopt the same approach as England and start charging all students £9000 a year (or whatever the English system charges). That would be a major step back for us and one I hope we dont see, although, like Woody says, WHEN () we get independence we'll have no option but to charge the same fees for all students.

 

@ Woody: I would not be against some sort of graduate tax but only if it kicks in after student loans (for fees and loan) have been paid off. I understand that as it stands you get money taken off automatically when you are earning above a certain salary and to offset the delay in going onto the graduate tax band I would add a bit more interest onto loans (but not fees). That why graduates pay something back but only when they can afford it + give a litle back in increased interest payments. A graduate tax as well as paying off student loans would not be something I'd support (purely for my own personal interest).

 

Edited to add: Meister Jag, Scum fae the Drum with very working class/low educated parents just about to qualify with a Masters Degree, could never have done that under previous higher education systems. Exception or rule? Dunno, not sure it's so clear cut these days

Edited August 22, 2011 by Steven H

[Woodstock Jag]

@ Woody: I would not be against some sort of graduate tax but only if it kicks in after student loans (for fees and loan) have been paid off. I understand that as it stands you get money taken off automatically when you are earning above a certain salary and to offset the delay in going onto the graduate tax band I would add a bit more interest onto loans (but not fees). That why graduates pay something back but only when they can afford it + give a litle back in increased interest payments. A graduate tax as well as paying off student loans would not be something I'd support (purely for my own personal interest).

 

The tuition fees system basically IS a graduate tax! It's not real debt. It doesn't affect your ability to get credit for a mortgage. You don't have to make payments when you aren't earning enough, and you pay back in line with your ability to pay! The only true loan component would be living expenses (which Scottish students are already paying back anyway). For a comprehensive explanation about this, take a look here. Graduate contributions are much fairer because otherwise you are funding it out of general taxation, which means that those from less fortunate backgrounds who didn't get the chance to go to University have to pay more tax essentially to pay for the very rich to send their kids to Uni.

 

Meister's "tax the fatcats" approach is as amusing and predictable as it is unrealistic. The richest have always been, and will always be, the most economically mobile, and the most responsive to tax changes. Other countries all over Europe have decreased their top rates of income tax over the last 7-8 years, even the social democrat utopias of Scandinavia did it. And they found that it actually increased the tax yield from the richest (both in absolute and proportional terms), as fewer emigrated to other low tax countries, more of them kept their businesses in their countries, and more of them supported the demand side of the economy, contributing the most to indirect taxes like VAT.

[Blackpool Jags]

I hope Shiner pours every penny he's got into pursuing this judicial review, and it it all blows back in his face leaving him destitute and sitting outside a wee jakey pub holding a cardboard sign that reads "hungry and homeless - any spare change".

[Meister Jag]

Meister's "tax the fatcats" approach is as amusing and predictable as it is unrealistic. The richest have always been, and will always be, the most economically mobile, and the most responsive to tax changes. Other countries all over Europe have decreased their top rates of income tax over the last 7-8 years, even the social democrat utopias of Scandinavia did it. And they found that it actually increased the tax yield from the richest (both in absolute and proportional terms), as fewer emigrated to other low tax countries, more of them kept their businesses in their countries, and more of them supported the demand side of the economy, contributing the most to indirect taxes like VAT.

 

Quick question before my head explodes: Why must everything in your World have a price tag? As a society, why can't we educate our children irrespective of background and parental earnings?

 

And Steven, call me an old revolutionary sex symbol, but when I was a student (Motherwell Tec' wi' the steelmen before you ask - I worked in the old Craigneuk Tube Works), higher education was free; so, theoretically, someone from - what you might refer to as an inferior postcode - could have gone all the way. Indeed, a musically gifted family member from the North of Glasgow did just that... last spotted downing a bottle of 12-year old malt before mesmerising a dilettante classical audience near you. I'm mean, this guy could have been the greatest ska trombone player of all time; but he had to throw it all away! But apparently a great way to get your Nat King and tour the World!

 

I'm sure there's a serious point in some of that !

 

Oh and Woody, I hope by "economically mobile" you're not talking about hiding cash in off-shore tax havens? Which brings me nicely round to why these leeches must be brought to account; but you'll probably disagree.

[Woodstock Jag]

Quick question before my head explodes: Why must everything in your World have a price tag? As a society, why can't we educate our children irrespective of background and parental earnings?

 

Everything has a price tag because everything costs money. Books cost the writers time and energy. Publishing costs money. Buildings cost money. Electricity and gas cost money. Attracting the best teaching staff costs money. Making sure a multi-century old building doesn't have slates falling off its roof and decapitating someone costs money.

 

And we DO educate children irrespective of background and parental earnings. It's called primary and secondary school. After that they're adults. And even then we STILL educate people irrespective of their background and parental earnings. Students don't pay a penny to study. Graduates pay if and only if they are earning, and pay back in proportion to the amount they're earning. To deny this is to be wilfully ignorant of the core facts of University funding.

 

And Steven, call me an old revolutionary sex symbol, but when I was a student (Motherwell Tec' wi' the steelmen before you ask - I worked in the old Craigneuk Tube Works), higher education was free; so, theoretically, someone from - what you might refer to as an inferior postcode - could have gone all the way. Indeed, a musically gifted family member from the North of Glasgow did just that... last spotted downing a bottle of 12-year old malt before mesmerising a dilettante classical audience near you. I'm mean, this guy could have been the greatest ska trombone player of all time; but he had to throw it all away! But apparently a great way to get your Nat King and tour the World!

 

Wrong. Higher education has never been free. Nothing in life is free. The political decision we make is who PAYS. You believe that all taxpayers should pay for it. I think successful graduates should pay for it. That's the difference.

 

Oh and Woody, I hope by "economically mobile" you're not talking about hiding cash in off-shore tax havens? Which brings me nicely round to why these leeches must be brought to account; but you'll probably disagree.

 

To be more economically mobile is to be able to move around and work from different countries in response to the most favourable conditions in terms of tax and growth potential. Unless you're about to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to live and work wherever they want you're going up a blind alley here. It's simply ridiculous to suggest that people who aren't resident in the UK and who earn money in other jurisdictions should be paying ANY UK tax on that income.

[Meister Jag]

Woody

 

I'm busy tonight (union work) so apologise for not being able to hit back with one of my usual educational diatribes. However, I don't think I'm being unkind to suggest that you've had the privilege of being born in a good postcode area so can reap the benefits of what comes with that...

 

You know my thoughts on tax evasion so if you're happy for corporate crooks to avoid paying their way then so be it. But they're actually conning all of us and this is money that could help fund education and health. At £30 billion plus per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year. (Benefit fraud, from memory was just over £1 billion.)

 

Based predominantly on 2008 data, the National Fraud Authority’s first ever Annual Fraud Indicator found fraud against the public sector accounts for 58% of the total fraud in the UK per year. Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure. (But don't tell the daily Mail as this would spoil a good story!) You seem to get a kick out of standing up for the fraudsters but have never explained why. Perhaps you're a closet mammonite or perhaps fiscal power and drooling over the rich simply floats your boat. I don't know but respect your right to get your kicks in whatever way you deem fit.

 

PCS (government workers union) estimates the figure at a whopping £120 billion. Tax Justice Network show that £25 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance and a further £70 billion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals. An additional £26 billion is going uncollected. The £120 billion figure is more than three-quarters of the annual deficit!

 

 

I maintain that education should be free and that we can afford it. We waste money waging wars and fail to ensure that the so-called captains of industry who are meant to be wealth creators are getting away with all sorts of dodgy dealings.

 

For what it's worth, from a mere technical college I did go onto higher education and it was free (1970s), grant aid was available and I wasn't asked to pay a penny. Another point is that the student loan system that we have in place is easily fiddled and basically one load of cr**. Over the years I've seen too many folk doctoring pay slips etc to remove overtime earnings and I seriously wonder if the game is worth the candle. (Apologies I know I'm jumping about a wee bit on this one.) But bottom line is I care enough about your education to want you to have to pay back sweet f*** all. Once you qualify and start up Woody Enterprises Plc, you can employ loads of Jags fans and make bucket loads of dosh. In so doing, you will pay tax and we'll all be happy. (Won't you?)

 

But to summarise, fraud increases in times of recession and tax evasion increases accordingly. We currently have 'the perfect storm'. The Westminster goons appear to be unable to do a lot about recession, but perhaps if we had less stealth taxes both problems may be ameliorated somewhat.

 

So Viva the class war!

Edited August 22, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

 

I maintain that education should be free and that we can afford it.

 

 

genuine question, why and how.

 

why should i pay my taxes to pay for some one to get a better job when they have finished, that's not including those that go to university just to learn with no thought of a job at the end.

 

THEY should pay for it, if they don't get a decent job they don't pay it back , whats the problem.

i am on a pretty crappy wage compared to some of those but due to being (just) on the limit my kids cant get any burserys and i have to pay for both of my kids at collage with transport feeding and clothing, they are both looking for jobs but that has to work round collage timings. so my sympathies for the poor students that get help for nothing are limited.

 

rant over but there you go.

 

as for the big bad rich, you just keep going so that they leave and take there companies with them but you can just blame the Tories for that

[Guy Incognito]

As it says. The tube in question's name is Phil Shiner. I think he deserves one for his attempts to roll back one of the more progressive political acts of our time. He apparently started out representing two students south of the border against the hefty tuition fees imposed by Westminster. But presumably a bang on the head recently prompted him to turn his attention - rather perversely for an alleged human rights lawyer - to seeking to undermine the Scottish system.

 

Message alert: if you really are seeking parity and not attention, Mr Shiner, attack the English system and use the Scottish system as the model you want to see UK-wide, not the other way about. Otherwise just clear off and leave things alone. It's not complicated.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14607122

A good post, Blackpool Jags. The real issue is the tuition fees system, not that English students pay fees whilst Scots students don't. The real issue always gets fogged by that gripe though. English students are right to be pissed-off at having to paying tuition fees (especially at the levels mooted) but they need to focus their pissed-offedness at the real enemy - the system itself.

 

Legally, I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on. It is a crap system but at the very least English students aren't being charged any more for studying up here than they would be if they chose to study in England or Wales.

[Meister Jag]

genuine question, why and how.

 

why should i pay my taxes to pay for some one to get a better job when they have finished, that's not including those that go to university just to learn with no thought of a job at the end.

 

THEY should pay for it, if they don't get a decent job they don't pay it back , whats the problem.

i am on a pretty crappy wage compared to some of those but due to being (just) on the limit my kids cant get any burserys and i have to pay for both of my kids at collage with transport feeding and clothing, they are both looking for jobs but that has to work round collage timings. so my sympathies for the poor students that get help for nothing are limited.

 

rant over but there you go.

 

as for the big bad rich, you just keep going so that they leave and take there companies with them but you can just blame the Tories for that

 

Ahh f***, I blame myself...

 

This whole debate is not about education or its affordability at all. This debate is about whether or not education should be used as a mechanism for creating another form of financial product that lays burden on those least able to pay to ensure that the owners of capital have enhanced claim on the resources of society, and including the mass of the population, and so control them. That is the argument that I am trying to make here.

 

The simple fact is that our society can afford to send all the students who currently want to go to university to enjoy the benefits of the education they desire. I know that because, firstly, a great many of them are already going and secondly there is significant unemployment in our society meaning we have no alternative use for the net labour of those currently denied the opportunity to learn and those denied the opportunity to teach.

 

In a very real sense this argument is complete, in itself as I have just expressed it. After all, the process of teaching and learning is ephemeral. Of course it creates human and social capital, which is of enormous value and yet unquantifiable in terms of the financial system – so valueless to it.

 

So, the economic reality is that university education on the scale we have enjoyed it is possible, and it appears sustainable. But to me it seems we wish to ignore these deep underlying truths that exist within our society and instead lay over the education process a financial mechanism which appears to make no sense to most who engage with it, and most especially students, their parents and most of those who teach those students. That is, we wish to turn this social and human gain from education that accords with the fundamental premise in society that the knowledge of one generation should be passed to the next without charge being levied in exchange for provision in old age into a financial commodity that has as its underpinning the premise that this education is training from which the sole benefit that arises is attributable to the beneficiary of that training who then has as an obligation not just to pay for it, but to pay for it with interest added over what may be a lifetime of work. (Bit of a long one but there you have it!)

Edited August 22, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

Ahh f***, I blame myself...

 

 

 

 

i should bloody think so too

[Woodstock Jag]

Woody

 

I'm busy tonight (union work) so apologise for not being able to hit back with one of my usual educational diatribes. However, I don't think I'm being unkind to suggest that you've had the privilege of being born in a good postcode so can reap the benefits of what comes with that...

 

Uh so what?

 

You know my thoughts on tax evasion so if you're happy for corporate crooks to avoid paying their way then so be it. But they're actually conning all of us and this is money that could help fund education and health. At £30 billion plus per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year. (Benefit fraud, from memory was just over £1 billion.)

 

Based predominantly on 2008 data, the National Fraud Authority’s first ever Annual Fraud Indicator found fraud against the public sector accounts for 58% of the total fraud in the UK per year. Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure. (But don't tell the daily Mail as this would spoil a good story!) You seem to get a kick out of standing up for the fraudsters but have never explained why. Perhaps you're a closet mammonite or perhaps fiscal power and drooling over the rich simply floats your boat. I don't know but respect your right to get your kicks in whatever way you deem fit.

 

Nothing like erecting a straw man to avoid answering the points I actually made.

 

I made no mention of tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal and I have stated my opposition to it countless times in the past. People deciding to hoard money in other countries ISN'T TAX EVASION. At a push it is tax avoidance but even that's being generous. By that rationale, you avoid German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, US, Australian, New Zealander, South African, Japanese, Belgian, Dutch, Austrian, Italian, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Latvian, Estonian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Brazilian, Indian, Pakistani, Canadian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Zimbabwean, Mexican, Colombian, Paraguayan, Argentinian, Luxembourgian, Turkish, Cook Islander, Fijian, Samoan, Bolivian, Libyan, Tunisian, Algerian, Moroccan, Maltese, Cypriot, Egyptian, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Romanian taxes. Curse you, you capitalist conspirator!

 

The point I am making isn't that I love people who avoid tax, let alone those who evade it. I have no interest in preserving the nests of those who are wealthy and powerful. But equally I am sufficiently rooted in the real world to know that going AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH TAX THESE ******** UNTIL THEY DIE doesn't solve the problem. The UK only has power to tax activities that take place in the UK. If you increase taxes on people in the UK, they will just leave, find more inventive ways of earning that aren't covered by the hideously complicated tax code or, wait for it, resort to tax evasion. And history shows us that no matter how much money we throw at the system, we don't get any better at catching those who evade tax. If you want to cut your nose to spite your face, be my guest, but it's better to get some tax from the rich than none at all.

 

The benefits issue is also a completely bizarre thing to bring up. I never brought it up because it's not relevant and it's a two-wrongs argument which is nonsense. Tax evasion by criminals doesn't JUSTIFY people cheating the benefits system. Benefits cheats are a lot easier for governments to crack down on for a basic reason: they hold the purse strings. Those who evade tax don't rely on a link with the state to enrich themselves; they rely on the opposite.

 

PCS (government workers union) estimates the figure at a whopping £120 billion. Tax Justice Network show that £25 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance and a further £70 billion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals. An additional £26 billion is going uncollected. The £120 billion figure is more than three-quarters of the annual deficit!

 

Tax avoidance is a perfectly legitimate activity. Indeed it's a misnomer to call it tax avoidance. If it was never due, it can't have been avoided. That's the point. If you arrange your affairs in such a way as the government's legislation fails to swoop the net over your stuff, that's their problem, not yours. Some tax avoidance is deliberately ENCOURAGED. Pension contributions, charitable donations, small business relief to name but three.

 

I love how you've picked two utterly non-objective organisations' estimates by the way.

 

I maintain that education should be free and that we can afford it. We waste money waging wars and fail to ensure that the so-called captains of industry who are meant to be wealth creators are getting away with all sorts of dodgy dealings.

 

Education CANNOT BE FREE. Just because it gets funded out of government tax revenues, doesn't mean that it magically doesn't cost anything! It's ultimately funded out of TAX. Tax is money. Real people's money. You essentially want everyone who pays tax to fund the tertiary education of the children of millionaires. Why? I want successful graduates to pay for the cost of their education and the more successful graduates to cover the shortfall of those who earn less. That's what the English system does. It's a REALLY GOOD PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM!

 

For what it's worth, from a mere technical college I did go onto higher education and it was free (1970s), grant aid was available and I wasn't asked to pay a penny.

 

No it wasn't free. Taxpayers paid for your education. Including pit-workers, nurses, teachers and shipbuilders. They paid for your education. An education that some of them were never in a position to receive.

 

Another point is that the student loan system that we have in place is easily fiddled and basically one load of cr**. Over the years I've seen too many folk doctoring pay slips etc to remove overtime earnings and I seriously wonder if the game is worth the candle. (Apologies I know I'm jumping about a wee bit on this one.)

 

No one's saying it's perfect, but it's been tightened up a lot over the past few years and if anything modern tax-collection methods are the most effective we've ever seen thanks to PAYE.

 

But bottom line is I care enough about education to want you to have to pay back sweet f*** all. Once you qualify and start up Woody Enterprises Plc, you can employ loads of Jags fans and make bucket loads of dosh. In so doing, you will pay tax and we'll all be happy. (Won't you?)

 

You're wilfully ignoring the point I keep making. "Caring" about education doesn't necessitate that you believe shipbuilders should have to pay for the University education of the children of millionaires. Caring about education means you want the best quality education for as many people as practical, and for financial means not to affect the opportunities of the less well off. The current system DOES THAT. If you graduate and you don't earn enough, you pay NOTHING back. If you graduate and you earn lots of money you pay a lot back. This is fairness.

 

Answer me this very simple question: is it fair that those who do not get the chance of a University education should have to pay the bill of those who do, even if said students' families are millionaires or even billionaires?

 

And for the record, it's incredibly unlikely that I will go on to run my own business. I have absolutely no desire to do that and am not remotely entrepreneurial. I'm a bourgeois academic who will live a comfortable but far from executive lifestyle at best!

[Steven H]

Having just read all that I think my head is about to explode, so can I simplify the discussion by saying to Meister Jag that I for one have no issues with the current system and no problem paying back money based on what I go on to earn as a result of my qualification (which aint gona be a fortune and aint gona 'make me rich' as I age. Why don't I have a problem paying according to what I earn? Well it pains me a bit to say it but because of the reasons Woody already outlined. I will be the first of my family to earn a Degree and I hope to provide that 'mindset' in my children so they to can go onto university when they leave school. Took me11 years to pluck up the courage just to apply because I always thought I was unable to afford it and that even if I could I was a wee tosser fae Drumchapel who 'underachieved' at school. Its a mindset thing these days, not as much a case of the rich getting more opportunities more the lower class society not going for it (the reasons for that open up a whole other debate though).

 

In short, got agree with Woody for the most part (on the education thing not the tax avoidance/evasion/fraud debate, dont even want to get into that).

[Meister Jag]

Uh so what?

 

 

 

Nothing like erecting a straw man to avoid answering the points I actually made.

 

Do you really mean that???? Me, your greatest fan!

 

Tax avoidance is a perfectly legitimate activity. Indeed it's a misnomer to call it tax avoidance. If it was never due, it can't have been avoided. That's the point. If you arrange your affairs in such a way as the government's legislation fails to swoop the net over your stuff, that's their problem, not yours. Some tax avoidance is deliberately ENCOURAGED. Pension contributions, charitable donations, small business relief to name but three.

 

Hm mm, I disagree. The problem with arguing that you are above the law is that this is the creed of gangsters, war lords, drug barons and corrupt officials throughout the world. These slimeball scumbags have no difficulty with their conscience, they do not have a conscience anything they want is their right and, for reasons unexplained, you seem happy supporting their behaviour. Justifying illegal activities because they suit your purpose is a very dangerous path, even for free market anarchist or whatever you're claiming to be this week.

 

In truth, in a fair and just society, the end does not justify the means as every individual has rights and responsibilities in a complex society. However, the trouble is many people nowadays are only interested in pursuing their rights. They simply will not accept that with rights comes responsibility e.g. their responsibility to the wider community.

 

To return to the topic, setting up your tax affairs in the most tax efficient way is avoidance and both within the law and is arguably morally defensible. I'm giving in on that point. But deliberately falsifying tax returns, wrongly claiming non resident status, deliberately falsifying any return to the Revenue is clearly illegal. I am amazed that you condone such immoral and illegal behaviour.

 

What becomes difficult and interesting if you are a tax adviser is the creative side of tax avoidance, where using offshore structures, buying offshore property, restricting time in the UK and other structures can be highly tax efficient.

 

As you'll be aware, highly complex multi-company structures can be virtually impenetrable if different appropriate offshore tax havens are used. But making a judgement that assesses the state of mind and intent of the individual avoiding tax in that creative and convoluted way is a seriously challenging and risky business; this is why your mates in industry pay top dollar to the lizards who can hide their cash; but you already knew that as you're clearly a fan of their nefarious methods.

 

Every taxpayer does HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT to structure and order his tax affairs to minimise taxation thereon. If he chooses to do this FOR BUSINESS REASONS in a complex web of offshore companies AND abides by all the rules AND declares everything correctly in my view he is within the law and legally and morally correct. And extremely busy and no doubt paying said lizards all sorts of fees! Am I being contradictory; eh, no, I don't think so... All I'm suggesting is that where there's fiddling going on - and under past and current governments this is BIG business, that the taxpayer (you, me and the guy next door) should expect the state to take steps to obtain what should have been paid. Is that wrong?

 

 

I love how you've picked two utterly non-objective organisations' estimates by the way. But am I wrong?

 

 

Education CANNOT BE FREE. Just because it gets funded out of government tax revenues, doesn't mean that it magically doesn't cost anything! It's ultimately funded out of TAX. Tax is money. Real people's money. You essentially want everyone who pays tax to fund the tertiary education of the children of millionaires. Why? I want successful graduates to pay for the cost of their education and the more successful graduates to cover the shortfall of those who earn less. That's what the English system does. It's a REALLY GOOD PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM! We will need to beg to differ. It can be free if you just open your eyes and consider my argument(s). Repeat after me: We can do this, they don't own us!

 

 

No it wasn't free. Taxpayers paid for your education. Including pit-workers, nurses, teachers and shipbuilders. They paid for your education. An education that some of them were never in a position to receive. Tenuous Woody, next you'll have me believing that your maw never gave you a free cuddle - everything has a price attached!

 

No one's saying it's perfect, but it's been tightened up a lot over the past few years and if anything modern tax-collection methods are the most effective we've ever seen thanks to PAYE. There are 120 billion reasons why we've not got the system right!

 

Answer me this very simple question: is it fair that those who do not get the chance of a University education should have to pay the bill of those who do, even if said students' families are millionaires or even billionaires? Probably not, but since when would you able to do away with the mega-rich? They've always been about and the class-system would probably still have them sending their kids to elite establishments. But if they did want to go to say Aberdeen Uni' with the proles then why not. So yip, free all the way!

 

And for the record, it's incredibly unlikely that I will go on to run my own business. I have absolutely no desire to do that and am not remotely entrepreneurial. I'm a bourgeois academic who will live a comfortable but far from executive lifestyle at best!

Out of interest, how will you fund this lifestyle? Are you a trainee accountant by any chance?

[Meister Jag]

Having just read all that I think my head is about to explode, so can I simplify the discussion by saying to Meister Jag that I for one have no issues with the current system and no problem paying back money based on what I go on to earn as a result of my qualification (which aint gona be a fortune and aint gona 'make me rich' as I age. Why don't I have a problem paying according to what I earn? Well it pains me a bit to say it but because of the reasons Woody already outlined. I will be the first of my family to earn a Degree and I hope to provide that 'mindset' in my children so they to can go onto university when they leave school. Took me11 years to pluck up the courage just to apply because I always thought I was unable to afford it and that even if I could I was a wee tosser fae Drumchapel who 'underachieved' at school. Its a mindset thing these days, not as much a case of the rich getting more opportunities more the lower class society not going for it (the reasons for that open up a whole other debate though).

 

In short, got agree with Woody for the most part (on the education thing not the tax avoidance/evasion/fraud debate, dont even want to get into that).

 

Ta for that and position noted. Disagree with most of what Woody says; but it's not personal.

[Meister Jag]

i should bloody think so too

 

but would you expect anything differnt?

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Who is going to pay for higher education?

 

It's ridiculouse we have 50% population going to uni. There is no need. At the same time there are so many people dropping out and wasting money and effort in the system. It is abused and not respected by the very people who should be using it.

 

http://politics.caledonianmercury.com//2011/03/12/why-john-hutton-gets-it-and-alex-salmond-doesn%E2%80%99t/

Edited August 23, 2011 by Lambies Lost Doo

[Woodstock Jag]

Hm mm, I disagree. The problem with arguing that you are above the law is that this is the creed of gangsters, war lords, drug barons and corrupt officials throughout the world. These slimeball scumbags have no difficulty with their conscience, they do not have a conscience anything they want is their right and, for reasons unexplained, you seem happy supporting their behaviour. Justifying illegal activities because they suit your purpose is a very dangerous path, even for free market anarchist or whatever you're claiming to be this week.

 

Okay you've just completely sidestepped what I said. At no point have I justified a single illegal activity or that anyone is above the law and at no point have I "supported their behaviour". Let's deal in facts please.

 

In truth, in a fair and just society, the end does not justify the means as every individual has rights and responsibilities in a complex society. However, the trouble is many people nowadays are only interested in pursuing their rights. They simply will not accept that with rights comes responsibility e.g. their responsibility to the wider community.

 

Responsibilities are simply respecting the rights of others. Nothing more; nothing less. Some rights are fundamental and no matter how disrespectful individuals are of the rights of others it should not undermine those fundamental rights. To depart from this is to become a moral relativist, which isn't moral at all.

 

To return to the topic, setting up your tax affairs in the most tax efficient way is avoidance and both within the law and is arguably morally defensible. I'm giving in on that point. But deliberately falsifying tax returns, wrongly claiming non resident status, deliberately falsifying any return to the Revenue is clearly illegal. I am amazed that you condone such immoral and illegal behaviour.

 

Er, fail. Re-read my last post:

 

"Tax evasion is illegal and I have stated my opposition to it countless times in the past."

 

That's condoning it, eh?

 

What becomes difficult and interesting if you are a tax adviser is the creative side of tax avoidance, where using offshore structures, buying offshore property, restricting time in the UK and other structures can be highly tax efficient.

 

Which is a perfectly legitimate activity.

 

As you'll be aware, highly complex multi-company structures can be virtually impenetrable if different appropriate offshore tax havens are used. But making a judgement that assesses the state of mind and intent of the individual avoiding tax in that creative and convoluted way is a seriously challenging and risky business; this is why your mates in industry pay top dollar to the lizards who can hide their cash; but you already knew that as you're clearly a fan of their nefarious methods.

 

It's not illegal to register a company in the Cayman Islands. The wonderful thing about the belief in freedom of movement of persons is that they are allowed to carry out their economic activity wherever and however they please within the confines of the law. For the most part, that's what these people do. The Guardian Media Group is one such example, which created a Cayman Islands company to oversee a merger-acquisition deal. Had they simply undergone the acquisition as a UK registered company, they would have been liable to pay hundreds of millions in corporation tax for an associated capital gain. That's perfectly fine. If they want to minimise their liabilities within the letter of the law so as to maximise their profitability, good luck to them.

 

These companies aren't "hiding" their cash. They still have to comply with all legislative accounting requirements of their respective territories, and they will often go to extraordinary lengths to get it right, saving lengthy and expensive court battles with the HMRC if they think there's something incorrect in the tax return.

 

Every taxpayer does HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT to structure and order his tax affairs to minimise taxation thereon. If he chooses to do this FOR BUSINESS REASONS in a complex web of offshore companies AND abides by all the rules AND declares everything correctly in my view he is within the law and legally and morally correct.

 

Their motivation is irrelevant, otherwise well done, you're almost reading from the same hymn-sheet with this.

 

And extremely busy and no doubt paying said lizards all sorts of fees!

 

Who are you to judge? It's their decision their problem.

 

Am I being contradictory; eh, no, I don't think so... All I'm suggesting is that where there's fiddling going on - and under past and current governments this is BIG business, that the taxpayer (you, me and the guy next door) should expect the state to take steps to obtain what should have been paid. Is that wrong?

 

What fiddling? If there's fraudulent misrepresentation on tax returns then of course that activity is illegal and should be investigated and acted upon. What on earth gave you the idea I thought anything different?

 

What I would say is that *because* the body of tax and business law has got so complex (a consequence of government's efforts to grab every last penny business earns) it's both an expensive and investigative nightmare to uncover instances of fraudulent behaviour. No amount of handwringing is going to solve that. There will always be fraud and there will always be people who get away with it. If I were to say that murders will always happen no matter how much we try to prevent them, you wouldn't say I was condoning murders or supporting the right of people to murder, would you? Why the intellectual inconsistency here?

 

And for the record, when someone legally avoids tax, they *have* paid what should have been paid. This is the case with the much demonised Philip Green and much as I find the man to be a ******, Lord Ashcroft too. It's not a crime to live in Monaco or Belize and we can't expect that to change any time soon.

 

We will need to beg to differ. It can be free if you just open your eyes and consider my argument(s). Repeat after me: We can do this, they don't own us!

 

Meanwhile in your socialist utopia, lecturers die of starvation as they don't get paid, after they try to teach classes without a building or books.

 

Tenuous Woody, next you'll have me believing that your maw never gave you a free cuddle - everything has a price attached!

 

It did. I had to cuddle her back. Mutuality principle in action.

 

There are 120 billion reasons why we've not got the system right!

 

But there are at least a trillion why we've got it a damned sight better than we might have and have done in the past.

 

Probably not, but since when would you able to do away with the mega-rich? They've always been about and the class-system would probably still have them sending their kids to elite establishments. But if they did want to go to say Aberdeen Uni' with the proles then why not. So yip, free all the way!

 

There's nothing wrong with people being mega-rich, but how can you, as a so-called progressive, believe that the poorest in our society should subsidise their offspring? State support should always be based on need. The very culture of rights and entitlement you so derided earlier is exactly the same culture you defend when you argue in favour of state subsidy of the education of the rich.

 

Out of interest, how will you fund this lifestyle? Are you a trainee accountant by any chance?

 

No. Undergraduate Law student.

[Vladimir Putin]

The Coalition botched the argument on 'tuition fees' from the start. As Woodstock has said, they aren't fees at all, and there still seems to be a remarkable amount of people out there who think it involves writing a cheque for £9,000 every September (which it does in some countries, including here in Russia). One of the protest groups were holding banners that said 'Can't pay, won't pay' - but there isn't anyone in the UK who 'can't' pay! It's a tax on (successful) graduates who have benefited from the education system to an extent that has allowed them to get a job that pays a good salary - how anyone who claims to be a progressive can be against this in principle is beyond me.

[alx]

No. Undergraduate Law student.

 

A word of caution! You'll be surprised how much you will change your mind in later life. Undergrads believe all sorts of things. I had mates in the Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Workers Party (one now on telly), Clydeside Anarchists.... you name it. I myself am ashamed to say that I was a CND activist (this was the eighties). The undergrad alx was a right silly twat!

[Phoenix]

The whole argument is that English, Welsh and Irish students will be charged to study in Scotland while students from every other EU country do not need to pay. Can you imagine the outcry from the SNP if it was only Scottish students who had to pay to study at an English University?

[Vladimir Putin]

The whole argument is that English, Welsh and Irish students will be charged to study in Scotland while students from every other EU country do not need to pay. Can you imagine the outcry from the SNP if it was only Scottish students who had to pay to study at an English University?

 

Education is a devolved issue, and the Scottish electorate (rightly or wrongly) have chosen how they want higher education to be financed. If England didn't want higher 'tuition fees', they shouldn't have voted for the Conservatives - why should the Scottish Government assume the cost of educating any English student who wants to avoid tuition fees? It's also completely impractical - if it was free for English students in Scotland, how many English students do you think would apply to St Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh? Thousands upon thousands, many of whom would have top grades. The Scottish Government's responsibility is to Scottish students, and in this sense they have no choice. The law firm making an issue of this is just seeking publicity.

[Phoenix]

Education is a devolved issue, and the Scottish electorate (rightly or wrongly) have chosen how they want higher education to be financed. If England didn't want higher 'tuition fees', they shouldn't have voted for the Conservatives - why should the Scottish Government assume the cost of educating any English student who wants to avoid tuition fees? It's also completely impractical - if it was free for English students in Scotland, how many English students do you think would apply to St Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh? Thousands upon thousands, many of whom would have top grades. The Scottish Government's responsibility is to Scottish students, and in this sense they have no choice. The law firm making an issue of this is just seeking publicity.

The Scottish government has to ,by law, allow EU students the right to study at Scottish universities for the same cost as Scottish students. The whole argument rests on the case that English, Welsh and Irish students are being treated differently to other EU students. The Scottish universities could easily block foreign students from claiming all the available places by simply giving Scottish students priority. The whole case that has been raised was that it is only English, Welsh and Irish students who are being asked to pay. French, German, Polish and students from every other EU country can study in Scotland free of charge. Would you think it was fair if it was only Scottish students who were asked to pay for tutition in England while the rest of the EU could study for free?