Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

I was just thinking, nice nuts, Will.

sadly, we have no banana

I haz spare.

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.

What about a health service? What if we now told people they had to pay a comparable x over a period of time, subject to all the caveats of ability to pay etc, for a health service. Of course, they might choose not to, but then they might not have all the opportunities in life that they might have hoped for. Would people take to the streets then?

It's not just about the payment, it's about expectation, what you feel you're entitled to, the promises you've been made, and the kind of society you want to live in.

I admire you felicity with argument, Tynan, but I have no idea what you really believe.

Paid through taxes, not a graduate tax.

To be 100% honest, I think the proposed system of repayment is pretty great. I wish I had something similar on my £60k Canadian student debt. Instead it's treated like any other bill. The moment I'm 6 months out of school, interest and repayments begin.

I am not happy with the cuts, however, and I'm not happy with the middle-class knee-jerk reactionism to students getting pissed off.

This. Actually, I feel a lot more sympathy for the students and kids now than at the start (was somewhat ambivalent at the point of the Millbank march) - because of the way they have been treated on the ground and the reaction from government and populace.

I hate the way it's been packaged up - the fee-paying mechanism and amount, bundled with a change in principle in how HE is funded. So any and every discussion can be derailed.

And (extent of) youth services and FE cuts are just plain wrong.

What about a health service? What if we now told people they had to pay a comparable x over a period of time, subject to all the caveats of ability to pay etc, for a health service. Of course, they might choose not to, but then they might not have all the opportunities in life that they might have hoped for. Would people take to the streets then?

I think you are misunderstanding my point, it's one of comparisons, it's not about my position on any particular issue, I've certainly not stated my position on the rise in tuition fees.

Is the imposition of a mandatory, non-optional and immediately payable (regardless of income) bill of 18k for no discernible reward with the threat of imprisonment for non-payment comparable to an optional fee for the education of your choice which will lead - in most cases - to a higher earning career and with a repayment scheme that most people would be forced to admit is not unreasonable, Horatio himself described the repayment scheme as "pretty great" - many** will even not have to payback anything (**estimates range from 25% to 50%).

I can't see it as a great comparison, that's all you should really read from what I have said.

It's not just about the payment, it's about expectation, what you feel you're entitled to, the promises you've been made, and the kind of society you want to live in.

No, really it's not.

My criticism of Horatio's comparison is about his comparison.

I admire you felicity with argument, Tynan, but I have no idea what you really believe.

Well you should, I have been over this quite a few times, I 'really believe' that the student fees are not like asking people to fork out 18k in the way laid out above.

"I admire you felicity with argument"

zzzZZzzzz z z z z z

who's felicity? ^Grooming.

I think you are misunderstanding my point, it's one of comparisons, it's not about my position on any particular issue, I've certainly not stated my position on the rise in tuition fees.

My point is that your position on tuition fees would be more interesting to hear about than following your argument as it relentlessly unfolds. Your argument might be more interesting if we knew what skin you had in the game.

I'm with Horatio when he says he doesn't quite understand why his comparison doesn't hold up in your eyes. You seem to be claiming that the comparison fails because one of the things being compared is optional and the other not. I don't see that 'optionality' would necessarily make a difference to people's reactions, and in any case this is an empirical question. I'm inclined to believe that people probably would take to the streets if they faced this kind of mandatory tax, and thought that by doing so they could avoid it by doing so. We disagree about the difference that makes a difference, that's all.

When I went to university I left with 8-10k owing to the student loans people, 5k owing to the bank due to me funding my last year with cashback from the all night spar, 1000 on credit cards. That was with me working the summers. It all needed to be paid off, at massive interest rates in the case of the overdraft and credit cards, and with interest amounted to way more than 18k. And this was 12 years ago, when it was supposedly "free". If I'd been told I could get a degree for a mere 18k and I would not need to pay back until I earned 21k then I think I'd have taken that deal. Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that it's not 18k is it? It's a whole lot more because there is also student loans on top. What does 3 years of those currently amount to?

I don't think course fees will be 9k for everyone. Media courses and the like will either have to charge less or be closed, as I don't think anyone seriously believes they are worth anything. And I work vaguely in media. Good designers have design degrees, not media ones. Prestigious courses might be able to charge more but with research money they might not need to, so I wonder how universities might use this to spread the fee money around and have prestigious degrees subsidise the drama courses. Ex polys will also have to compete on price. Trad universities probably won't, so we'll be back to a 2 tier system. Which may be no bad thing. When my sister did nurse training it was on the job practical training, not a degree, and it was no less effective than the first of the 'degree nurses' a year later. We may find more vocational training and qualifications that replace the idea of 3 years study.

Incidentally, if you do earn enough and feel that your university education was a factor in your financial security then how about supporting your old uni's student hardship fund with a monthly donation?

Not to mention the disincentive an 18k increase will be to people thinking of applying, making it a matter of wealth over academic capabilities (a reasonably smart kid from a rich family is going to be more likely to go to uni than a genius from a poor one).
Saying that going to university is 'optional' doesn't mean that it's ok to put people off furthering their education by whacking a massive debt on them. I think that it should be 'optional' on the basis of "Will it be the best choice in order for me to pursue my career, or would going into a trade or something else be better?" instead of "Can i afford it?".

Seriously though. How rich to you have to be to lose 18k just through tax increases in one year? Fuck me.

If you earned £330k, you would now be paying an extra £18k in income tax under the 50% super tax rate on earnings over £150k.

Your argument might be more interesting if we knew what skin you had in the game.

I've not attempted to make it interesting, it's essentially a boring peripheral point in a broader debate.

You seem to be claiming that the comparison fails because one of the things being compared is optional and the other not.

No, I've not claimed that.

I don't see that 'optionality' would necessarily make a difference to people's reactions. . .

I think it is fairly obvious that it would, a simple thought experiment could show us that.

I'm inclined to believe that people probably would take to the streets if they faced this kind of mandatory tax

The imposition of a mandatory, non-optional and immediately payable (regardless of income) bill of 18k for no discernible reward with the threat of imprisonment for non-payment would, without a doubt, see people take to the streets.

I think we can all agree on that.

Media courses and the like will either have to charge less or be closed, as I don't think anyone seriously believes they are worth anything.

I suspect media courses will go for the maximum fee, I think all courses will, to drop your fees is an admission of guilt, by charging a lower rate you are basically admitting to the course being, comparatively, of lesser value.

Saying that going to university is 'optional' doesn't mean that it's ok to put people off furthering their education by whacking a massive debt on them.

No one has said that.

ZzzzZZZZZZZZzzz . . . .

[the seller] is incentivised to keep the price high as an indicator of the quality.

Yep, basically some version of that.

However, the quality of a degree course is transparent(ish), and comparable to competing degree courses.

I think all courses in the same degree will harmonise their fees over time (within reason) - if the idea that a media course might present itself as a lesser course (compared to, say, a degree in law) by charging less, then this applies even more so to two competing media courses.

• i.e. The Market for Lemons
  
  

I've heard some slurs against students recently, but this . . .

What's with the bee theme over the last few days?

In that instance, having another straw man hoisted into place.

If you earned £330k, you would now be paying an extra £18k in income tax under the 50% super tax rate on earnings over £150k.

If I was earning £330k I wouldn't come to this forum, this forum is strictly £200k and less.

In that instance, having another straw man hoisted into place.

I don't mean to bring in any straw men, but i'm just a bit at loss as to what you're arguing for/against? Where do you actually stand in this?

If I was earning £330k I wouldn't come to this forum, this forum is strictly £200k and less.

I think you're right

From https://www.lfgss.com/thread50729.html

£330k would open access to the secrethigher levels of the forum. With strippers.

I don't mean to bring in any straw men

No worries, he won't be lonely on this thread.

: P

Ii'm just a bit at loss as to what you're arguing for/against? Where do you actually stand in this?

I am saying Horatio's comparison doesn't really work. I think I have said it a few times now.

It's starting to sound like a well known idea - schrodinger's cat - fermat's last theorem - Horatio's comparison.

i said it before but i'll say it again, all of those "greater than" signs are the wrong way around except the bottom one which correctly reads less than 10,000. for example 10,000>19,999 reads 10,000 is greater that 19,999 which of course it's not. it should be 10,000<19,999 and similarly for the rest.

£330k would open access to the secrethigher levels of the forum. With strippers.

You get tax breaks in the upper levels and there is a man in the toilets who gives you soap for a pound.

I am saying Horatio's comparison doesn't really work. I think I have said it a few times now.

It's starting to sound like a well known idea - schrodinger's cat - fermat's last theorem - Horatio's comparison.

ffs... now i'm gonna have to read the last 3 pages again, i've forgotten what it was now...

i said it before but i'll say it again, all of those "greater than" signs are the wrong way around except the bottom one which correctly reads less than 10,000. for example 10,000>19,999 reads 10,000 is greater that 19,999 which of course it's not. it should be 10,000<19,999 and similarly for the rest.

Phew, i thought something looked wrong but i didn't wanna say anything... little number eats bigger number :)