Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

Not that the cuts aren't important.

Explain to me how this is the fault of regulators, please? In my understanding this entire episode is a result of an unregulated financial system (at the request of bankers).

You're right, the regulators are just one component of a whole system of fail, and not even the most morally despicable. Perhaps a better explanation is that we've been invaded by aliens?

Let me put it this way. Imagine you're a student or soon-to-be-student. You are about to start university just like everyone before you has. You will get the same services as everyone else before you (this isn't true, as you'll likely get worse services, but..). However, all of a sudden, you are being asked for 18k more than anyone else who has gone before you. In fact, many of the people who went before you paid nothing and they are the ones who want you to pay 18k more. ...

Of these ones who went before and paid nothing for their education, many went on to get jobs and pay tax and so between then and now have been paying for all the free education that other people have been getting since then.

The next batch of students will get a debt against their names with rather gentle tax-like repayment terms, but won't have to pay as much tax for the education of those who come after. So yes, tomorrow's students will be worse off than the 'free' education generations, but no, the difference isn't as big as the headline value of their loans.

Obviously the ones who do rather well out of this are those who have had their degree for free, still have most of their tax-paying lives ahead of them, and now won't have to pay as much for other people's education as was paid for theirs. I agree that this is shit, but note that this group will still have to pay:

• for the bits of direct grant not abolished by the government
  
• to put up the money the students will be borrowing (at least until the govt. sells the debt)
  
• about as much tax as the economy can bare to dig us out of the current crisis.
  
  

so needn't start rubbing their hands with avaricious glee just yet.

Personally, i think there are plenty of problems with the govt.'s policy, but i'm getting fed up with the opposition's failure to accurately identify them.

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! :)

Of these ones who went before and paid nothing for their education, many went on to get jobs and pay tax and so between then and now have been paying for all the free education that other people have been getting since then.

The next batch of students will get a debt against their names with rather gentle tax-like repayment terms, but won't have to pay as much tax for the education of those who come after. So yes, tomorrow's students will be worse off than the 'free' education generations, but no, the difference isn't as big as the headline value of their loans.

Obviously the ones who do rather well out of this are those who have had their degree for free, still have most of their tax-paying lives ahead of them, and now won't have to pay as much for other people's education as was paid for theirs. I agree that this is shit, but note that this group will still have to pay:

[]for the bits of direct grant not abolished by the government
[]to put up the money the students will be borrowing (at least until the govt. sells the debt)
[*]about as much tax as the economy can bare to dig us out of the current crisis.

so needn't start rubbing their hands with avaricious glee just yet.

Personally, i think there are plenty of problems with the govt.'s policy, but i'm getting fed up with the opposition's failure to accurately identify them.

You responded to me. Where did I fail, or attempt, to identify a problem in government policy just now? I was talking about student anger vs non-student acceptance of the policy, and argue that both groups would act (largely) the same, but they're not in the same boat.

I did, a few pages back discuss cuts to non-Stem courses, and make my opinion clear that I think that's a horrible way of dealing with academia. So if you want a more substantial attack on policy (from me), you can look there.

horatio, i think you're focusing too much on the optionality element of tynan's argument. I think difference between the repayment terms of a new student loan and the hypothetical '18k NOW!!!' tax is more significant.

There is an argument to be had about the social implications something labelled an 18k loan, and the differing attitudes to debt in different parts of society, but that doesn't seem to be the argument you are making.

Oh. If you are arguing that other groups would be just as angry if they *thought *they were facing the same change as students *think *they are facing, and assuming students really do think they are facing an '18k NOW!!!' type situation, then i agree.

horatio, i think you're focusing too much on the optionality element of tynan's argument. I think difference between the repayment terms of a new student loan and the hypothetical '18k NOW!!!' tax is more significant.

There is an argument to be had about the social implications something labelled an 18k loan, and the differing attitudes to debt in different parts of society, but that doesn't seem to be the argument you are making.

First, I'm saying it will be about 18k more, not 18k total (it'll be around 27k total, I guess).

Second (not really, probably tenth), my argument is about the reaction of a group of people to being told they will now be having to spend £18,000 pounds more than they expected and those before them had (and again, for that amount of money, they'll probably be worse off than those before). I argue that this will piss off that segment of society, regardless of what they're labelled (student, pensioners, immigrants, sailors, farmers, etc.).

Can someone tell me if I'm missing something? I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Here's what I see: You arguing it's not comparable -

Yep.

You arguing it's not comparable because one group can opt out, and therefore it's not the same.

No.

The optional or not point is subsidiary.

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?

It's fair in the respect that I recognize it as, generally, the idea you are putting forward, but as I have said I don't think the thing you used to illustrate the 'take a hit' part ("everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich [having to] fork out 18k") is comparable with the way tuition fees are implemented.

Ok, so it's the method of payment? But I'm pretty sure I've said if that hit was implemented in the exact same way (people could pay it off over a life-time, as their income dictates) I believe they would be just as pissed off.

horatio, i think you're focusing too much on the optionality element of tynan's argument.

+1

Ok, so it's the method of payment? But I'm pretty sure I've said if that hit was implemented in the exact same way (people could pay it off over a life-time, as their income dictates) I believe they would be just as pissed off.

If people are getting something for their money (a house, a car, a law degree) I can't see them taking to the streets, and if the 18k charge is optional (on condition of acceptance) I think it even less likely that they would take to the streets, and if the repayment only started (if it ever does) when they earn more than XXXX I think it even more unlikely that they would head out onto the streets in protest.

If on the other hand we remove these caveats (let's say they get nothing, have to pay up immediately and pay regardless of their income) then the comparison falls apart.

I now own two pairs of trousers.

I now own two pairs of trousers.

Corporate whore.

Today two pairs of trousers, tomorrow primark.

I now own two pairs of trousers.

Have you killed again Will ?

It's "two trousers". Two pairs of trousers is four trousers. Fickking thick student scum.

this is a pair of trousers

this is two pairs of trousers

More money on education, me thinks!

Have you killed again Will ?

No, but my bum is now cold.

^^ The first is a gentleman's trouser. That below are two gentleman's trousers. Or a pair of trousers.

Which is why it's a "Corby trouser press", not a fickking "pair of trousers' press".

Jeezuz.

They are jeans.

I mean Jean's.

I've also got a lovely bunch of coconut.