Options
If student's dont want the tuition fees....
OvertheUnder
Posts: 4,764 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Would they really be prepared to shift the costs to the taxpayer?
I find it slightly ironic that students dont really seem to have alternative to Fees and would rather protest than actually think about how their individual educational needs should be paid for.
1) Should the state pick the up the bill? - even when the uptake of undergraduates is increasing?
2) Would students be happy to pay an extra Tax (i.e Graduate Tax) on something that may not even get them into a career?
I personally disagree with the policy of the Graduate Tax, as it will force graduates to expect paying an extra tax for their forseeable future. Would it be right for graduates to foot the bill in the form of a new tax to pay for other students?
I find it slightly ironic that students dont really seem to have alternative to Fees and would rather protest than actually think about how their individual educational needs should be paid for.
1) Should the state pick the up the bill? - even when the uptake of undergraduates is increasing?
2) Would students be happy to pay an extra Tax (i.e Graduate Tax) on something that may not even get them into a career?
I personally disagree with the policy of the Graduate Tax, as it will force graduates to expect paying an extra tax for their forseeable future. Would it be right for graduates to foot the bill in the form of a new tax to pay for other students?
0
Comments
It wouldn't even be up for discussion in a civilised country.
Fair enough -So the taxpayer should foot the bill to give every student a free university education?
Dont forget that 6th form/college students make the choice to go to university and that Degrees have been increasingly devalued and no longer have the impact they once did compared to 25 yrs ago.
No such thing as state money. No such thing as free money. Pay for your own further education based on ability to pay or pay more in income tax to cover the further education of whoever wants it whether you can afford it or not. Either way, you pay.
The only thing up for discussion is at what point you decide individual choices are funded by said individuals where they can afford it and set the levels of taxation accordingly.
It's as if students haven't grasped that they become tax payers. If they don't want to fund their own why would they be prepared to fund someone elses?
Unfortunately, in a Capitalist state taxation is where the state gets the majority of it's money - so yes.
In a state where the means of production are owned by the state exceesive taxation wouldn't be a problem, as wages would be more equitable, and the profits made out of the labour of the workforce would go to the state to be spent on such things as this.
(I don't believe in university education "on demand" by the way - there should be strict criteria whereby those that have the ability get there without having to worry about money.)
Do you believe that all education up to the age of 18 should be paid for by the parents as well?
If not, why not?
I know that there's a significant right-wing voice that bleats on about not wanting to pay for something if they don't use it e.g. "Why should my taxes go to schools and hospitals - my kids are grown up now, and I've not been ill for years."
But to be honest, I'd rather have the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance whinging on about such things and free university education for all instead of a bunch of smug right wingers saving a few quid a month, with a collective result of denying services to people who wouldn't be able to afford them privately.
The Great British socialist tradition is being dismantled and we're heading back to the Victorian era and squirearchy. However, while that may be the desire of the Tories and Lib Dems, we have a much more enriched and informed population now. If they go too far, I suspect that they'll be physically removed by something ten times the size of the poll tax protests.
That is certainly true. I'm not entirely sure some of the students at the protest actually understand why they disagree the policy of increasing fees.
They can't have it both ways - either they accept to Labour's policy of increased taxes solely on the Graduates to give students free education or have fee's.
Students shouldn't have to worry about money.
They should be getting an education, which includes obtaining social skills which accrue from interacting with others from all over the world and from different backgrounds.
Oh, but young people don't get that same opportunity?
Oh my :eek:
So going on your logic the state should fund every student to go to University. As I mentioned before University education is not compulsary for young people - They make the choice to go rather than be required to go instance with schools, hospitals etc.
Therefore isn't rather unfair that the Taxpayer (included the graduate under Labour's plans) should fund the someones else's choice to go to university?
Remember students choose to go to university - no one is forcing them.
Is this a joke or something?
Of course the state should fund higher education - it is the state that benefits, as well as the individual student.
No - why?
:eek::eek:
So students don't need to learn about fiscal responsibility (even though they're not being asked to pay upfront fees anyway) and they will all be socially prepared to finally enter the workplace having spent several self indulgent years surrounded by people from their exact same peer group.
Yeah right.!!
1. Tax on bankers
2. Tax on Rich people over 100K
If paying for students free eduction means is coming out of the pockets of average earners or increasing debt, I am against it.
Michael Portillo said that their were a lot more students than rich people in his reply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/dec/05/executivesalaries.executivepay
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7859034.stm
OK so their is a few years difference but 1900000 divide by 113,000 = 16.8 students for each rich person.
If they paid 50% tax, that's £50,000 / 16.8 = £2,976 for each student.
Of course that means their tax's would go on nothing else. Also they may not be too happy about it and leave the country or move to Wales or Scotland.
Please feel free to correct my lousy calculations. I just wanted to put this, tax the rich, student leader alternative argument, in to more practical terms.
Some of those students may not be university students and their may be less people earning 100K plus.
The student leaders may also consider, any one earning over a lesser amount, a rich person, that needs taxing, to fund their rightful education.
Oh no...you can't be saying such wicked things
Labour's policy of 50% managed create a situation where countless graduates couldn't find any meaningful employment opportunities because the supply of graduate level education rapidly exceeded demand required with employers.
Not when you consider that by bailing out the banks we now control a vast means of production. Lets not have students sit on the dole doing nothing whilst the banks take how six figure bonuses :eek:
I don't break the laws perhaps I shouldn't help fund the police. I've got no plans to invade France so why fund an army. I'm anti nuclear weapons so I shouldn't pay towards Trident. I'm anti the monarchy, I don't use public transport, I haven't got any kids blah blah blah blah.
If you want to debate what a civilised society should provide to ensure each and every member of said society is entitled to x,y, and z then fine, but don't use dumb questions or you're get dumb answers.
50% at uni, only 15% earning over £44k (let alone a 100). Seems pretty straight forward.
Questions need to be asked of employers. Why do some of these jobs they advertise now require a degree standard education when they didn't before?
It would be cheaper if a candidate paid for his own 6 week training course when starting a new job than go to uni, come away with a much greater level of debt, an unrelated qualification and still having to go on the training course anyway.
Don't people understand it's a basic right?
This is our future.
I am old enough to remember free dental services, free education, bins emptied each week, free parking and so on. As time goes on we seem to get less and less in the way of services for higher and higher costs.
Years ago we didn't have all the multitude of taxes and scams we have now; airport taxes, green taxes, congestion taxes, speeding and parking scams, higher vat, insurance tax and so on. Fuel tax is higher, road tax is higher, thresholds have stood still or moved very little.
On top of that we don't have nationalised industries to support now, which were very expensive (according to some), no infrastructure to update in many areas (now private) and many formally free services have to be paid for or now have some sort of charge.
There are more people paying more of the new and increased taxes and yet we can't fund education, local services, effective road maintenance, an army/navy/air force and any number of other things now.
Why?
Maybe then a compromise could be that they only pay their costs back if they turn out to be too crap to graduate.
I have heard all this before. It mainly comes from those who pay no tax and/or live on benefits.
A chap live in our village always giving his views where the council should be spending the money, he is unemployed lives in a rent free house and pays no council tax.
So I would suggest as I do not live in Australia, the Australian Government should foot the bill for our students to go to university so they can the afford to go clubbing and drinking every weekend.