Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

They are being asked to pay 18k for an education of that will - in most cases - see them in better / higher paid jobs, this is of course option, no one is making higher education / fee paying mandatory.

This sum will be paid back when and if the graduates can afford to do so, not immediately, perhaps not for many years, in some case never, and when or if they do cross the threshold of earnings the repayments will in no way be demanded in full, but rather paid off over time in smaller instalments.

I am not sure you can compare a hypothetical imposition (and presumably non-optional) charge of 18k with an optional and highly beneficial college education with fees being paid back over a prolonged period with various safeguards in place for those who are unable to pay it back - (earnings related thresholds and the outright cancellation of the debt after a set time and so on).

I agree that the non-optional immediate imposition of a 18k tax of some kind that needs to be paid by everyone and in one go wouldn't go down very well, but I can't see how it compares that well - as an example of how troubling this is for many students - to tuition fees.

Whoa, this gost lost in the ether.

You can compare a hypothetical imposition with an 18k charge to students. They are both impositions. A student is, by definition, a student. This is one of the terms of the argument I am making. Simply saying "they don't have to go to school" does not work, as you have discounted the entire group. And it is obvious that the protestors label themselves students and are taking it as an imposition.

That is to say, my argument is this:

Compare A when this happens to B when this happens (where "this happens" = the imposition of a fee which is identical).

You're response seems to be pointing to this: If B is not happy when "this happens," then they should be C.

Although someone is free to make this argument (and keep in mind, B does not become part of group A, because group A includes many graduates who had their education paid for, or those who paid the smaller fees, in addition to those who chose not to go to university. They will be part of a new group which only includes those who chose not to go to school because of the new fee system), it does not point out a fallacy in my argument.