Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

You are really bending the argument more than it will sustain.

No one is asking anyone to fork out 18k in one go, nor over three years.

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.

No, I've not said anything even remotely like that.

**"What I am saying" (I got that line off Tony Blair) is that I don't recognise the comparison between an 18k hypothetical tax that is immediately payable and presumably mandatory and presumably without obvious consideration/return/reward . . .

. . . with a tuition fee that ultimately is optional, pays for a college education of your choice, in most cases leads to higher earnings and can be paid off in a way that makes it affordable to everyone.

Going back to your original point - if we forcibly imposed a 18k tax of some kind we'd see a whole lot more people on the streets - I can't see how this (out hypothetical 18k tax) is comparable to the tuition fees, the dynamic of the two are so completely different.**

**It's ultimately optional in this respect:

Our hypothetical 18k tax would be enforceable by law I presume, ie: if you don't pay up you will face whatever sanctions come with not paying - this sanction can only ultimately be prison as any intermediate fines or penalties can be rejected in the same way as the original - and if we want to avoid an infinite regress of some kind we need to see prison at some stage in the sanctions (otherwise we build an infinite regress of fines for not paying fines for not paying fines. . . . etc). On the other hand if there were no sanction, no threat of prison, people would likely not bother paying, and people are unlikley to take to the streets to protest something they can more easily ignore.

So logic tells me the 18k tax is enforceable by law - and non-payment ultimately carries with it the threat of prison.

*In this respect, one is non-optional, whilst the other is ultimately optional, I understand your idea that we can define a student as a kind of creature in and of itself, rather than a person (like other people) who is studying and if we stick to that definition we can describe the fee as non-optional, *I understand the idea but don't agree with it.****

Not sure where the rather loaded term 'Middle England' came from - can we not stick to your original - and less emotive term - "everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich"

You think I am, I don't think I am.

I am looking at it from outside, as I am neither a student, nor someone who is subject to our hypothetical 18k tax.

**Let's stick to the original argument, the imposition of an 18k tax on everyone (not 'middle England'), would see people take to the streets - and as such is comparable with student tuition fees and the protests against those fees.

That's the argument I am disagreeing with, I can't see a comparison.**

Let's stick to the thing I responded to:

horatio: I'm pretty sure, however, if you asked everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich (as there is no progressive payment scheme here), to fork out 18k, you'd see a whole lot more people on the streets<<<

My response was and still is that the two are not really comparable.

See my posts above, I think I have gone over the basic points.

Alright, I've highlighted everything I've seen that is a critique of my point.

Here's what I see: You arguing it's not comparable many times. You arguing it's not comparable because one group can opt out, and therefore it's not the same. You also make note of my argument (that my argument has nothing to do with one group being able to opt out or not), but say you don't accept it.

There's not really anything else I can say? I've given my argument, you've said you don't accept it, but instead, feel I should take account of the ability to opt out (which if you really want, I'll have a go at - but it's academic at that point. My original point is that if people were expected to take a hit like the students are, they would also be very angry).

Is this fair?

Nice! :)