Rioting students

[142094]

Or alternatively, Person A is very intelligent and soon makes his way up the career ladder and becomes a high-flying executive on £300,000 per annum whilst Person B decides they want to help others and becomes a teacher on a tenth of the salary. Person A gets huge amounts of grants and assistance because only one person lives in the house and they don't earn much, and they have minimal debts, whereas Person B comes from a 2-parent household in a suburban street; they cannot afford to offer much support but the system deems them rich enough to not get any money. Still fair?

Indeed if person A gets this £300k job, they then will pay more tax and at a higher rate than person B over their working life. This seems a lot fairer to me.

A lot of benefits are means tested, and I don't see why university should be any different. Your point about person B's family having a 2 parent household etc but the system deems them rich enough - fair enough, but it is the system at fault here, and that should be changed.

Do all rich families pay for everything? I know a lot of people who have rich parents/family and have to pay their own way. Not everyone is given everything they want.

Anyone who borrows money pays interest. Poor people regularly take out credit and get totally shafted. Going to University gives you the chance to no longer be poor (and it's probably interesting to see what people regard as being poor, or on the poverty line, when I'd say it was struggling to feed yourself and others would say it is about not enjoying a life with material goods and services) - and ultimately be able to provide a better life to your children, who can then go on and study hard and.. hey, perhaps become the very rich people that so many people are jealous of.

Again, not everyone is born rich or inherits money. Some actually work for it. They probably started out 'poor' too. Doesn't this prove that EVERYONE has the same opportunities, if they choose to take them?

I'm not saying that all rich families pay for everything, and yes some people from rich backgrounds will pay themselves. However the way the system is at the minute is that poorer people will pay more for the same course at the same university than those who are well off and can afford to pay for their children's tuition fees. In effect raising the cap on tuition fees will mean that poorer people will either have to go to universities of a lower standard (as it is expected that these will not raise their fees as high as some of the better universities), or will be put off from going to university altogether. This then means that the social mobility as you have said in your post is seriously affected.

 

[scotsman]

Surely with the NHS losing having to cut down on wards etc, and many other sectors having budgets slashed, we should all have to contribute more/make changes to the way we do things. Looks like students want everyone else but them to face the cuts...

I couldn't disagree more, you really are in Cameron's pocket, aren't you?

The point is education, healthcare and other essential services should be free at the point of use. It should be the point of paying taxes, not paying in addition. Surely education should be based on ability to learn versus ability to pay?

 

[yorkie]

(And, do we know as fact that every university is going to charge the full £9,000?)

It's for 'exceptional cases' with strings attached, however the propaganda that is being spouted by the protesters is that all courses will be charging £9,000. Also they will all go on to earn fatcat wages that mean they are worse off under the new system than the old system, apparently. And anyone who is going to be earning £30k+ can't possibly afford a few hundred quid of that going to repay the cost of educating them, that would be so unfair, wouldn't it?

If you ask some of them why they drop litter on the floor, the answer is "it's a cleaner's job" if you asked them if they are likely to become a cleaner, then the answer may well be "I wunt dare" then when they don't get the job of their dreams, they get benefits to sit around doing nothing while we bring people from overseas to do the jobs they don't want to do. Sounds far-fetched? Believe me it isn't, and this is reality for an increasing number of them. It's not the young people's fault; it's society that is to blame, giving unrealistic expectations and eroding their sense of responsibility. Of course, this describes a minority, but it is a significant and ever-increasing one. Worrying.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely education should be based on ability to learn versus ability to pay?

It is. If someone is "unable to pay" (and earning £21,000 per year means you don't pay on the new system) then they do not pay.

I am on the existing system, which means that earning more than £15,000 means you are considered able to pay. I am lucky to be in that category, and I'm certainly not going to go round smashing bus stops because I am paying a few quid of that per month. Many people do not have jobs so it seems absolutely idiotic to moan at having to pay a small proportion of your salary when you are fortunate enough to be getting such a salary.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I couldn't disagree more, you really are in Cameron's pocket, aren't you?

No, no. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[yorkie]

And my friends at Uni are not 'howling with laughter' at all, they're standing in solidarity with the English students; many of them have travelled across the country to join protests against the proposals.

And the money they spent to do this, is coming from where exactly?

And the time they spent doing this, what would they have been doing if they hadn't done it?

Sounds suspiciously like they may have too much time/money on their hands to me.

 

[scotsman]

It is. If someone is "unable to pay" (and earning £21,000 per year means you don't pay on the new system) then they do not pay.

I am on the existing system, which means that earning more than £15,000 means you are considered able to pay. I am lucky to be in that category, and I'm certainly not going to go round smashing bus stops because I am paying a few quid of that per month. Many people do not have jobs so it seems absolutely idiotic to moan at having to pay a small proportion of your salary when you are fortunate enough to be getting such a salary.

Any possible savings for graduates will be outweighed by the increase in tutition fees.

You seem to be under the impression that all the students rioted, the fact is that this thread title is misleading, the tiny minority were rioters and even then - they were egged on by professional troublemakers.

Education should be free and it is a travesty that in one of the richest countries in the world, people cannot access Higher Education because of the expense they will face. We should not have a two-tier education system either. Why should you pay more to go to a more prestigious university? It defeats the purpose of increasing tutition fees "to cut the defecit", unless you're trying to profiteer from people's hopes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the money they spent to do this, is coming from where exactly?

And the time they spent doing this, what would they have been doing if they hadn't done it?

Sounds suspiciously like they may have too much time/money on their hands to me.

Megabus fares from Aberdeen are around £15, many students have one or more jobs to support themselves while they are in Education - a friend of mine has 2 jobs and can't afford a TV licence. Says a lot.

They would have been studying, but they gave up their time to show that they disagree with these cuts. Do you think anyone would pay money to march in the cold and be 'Kettled' by the Met for fun?

 

[yorkie]

Any possible savings for graduates will be outweighed by the increase in tutition fees.

Only people who earn higher amounts, who can afford to pay, will pay.

You seem to be under the impression that all the students rioted, the fact is that this thread title is misleading, the tiny minority were rioters and even then - they were egged on by professional troublemakers.

I make no such claim, but there were thousands of people rioting, and they do appear to be students. No-one is employed as a troublemaker.

Education should be free

People who go to uni should have their fees paid for by taxpayers? Many people who do not earn a lot of money will disagree with that.

and it is a travesty that in one of the richest countries in the world,

But we're not that rich any more.

people cannot access Higher Education because of the expense they will face.

People "cannot" do a course that attracts fees that only have to be repaid if they earn more than £21,000 per year? Come off it! That's a daft claim that is nonsensical.

The 'expense' does not have to be 'faced' until you are earning a salary that is good enough to be able to afford to pay it back!

We should not have a two-tier education system either. Why should you pay more to go to a more prestigious university?

Why should I pay more to travel to London because my line is more 'prestigious' than someone who lives in another city? Why should it cost more to live in a more 'prestigious' city? The list is endless...

It defeats the purpose of increasing tutition fees "to cut the defecit", unless you're trying to profiteer from people's hopes.

There is no profit to be found in student loans or running universities. Do you honestly think there is?

Megabus fares from Aberdeen are around £15, many students have one or more jobs to support themselves while they are in Education - a friend of mine has 2 jobs and can't afford a TV licence. Says a lot.

It doesn't really say a lot. A growing number of people now live without a TV license and use the internet instead. If she didn't have any 'luxury' items such as a phone, computer, etc, then I'd be more inclined to believe (s)he is in poverty (which is what you are trying to imply, right?)

They would have been studying, but they gave up their time to show that they disagree with these cuts.

What cuts do they propose instead? (or do they propose that this country goes bust?)
What did they achieve taking this action compared to studying?

Do you think anyone would pay money to march in the cold and be 'Kettled' by the Met for fun?

Only if they are very stupid.

 

[jon0844]

If you ask some of them why they drop litter on the floor, the answer is "it's a cleaner's job" if you asked them if they are likely to become a cleaner, then the answer may well be "I wunt dare" then when they don't get the job of their dreams, they get benefits to sit around doing nothing while we bring people from overseas to do the jobs they don't want to do. Sounds far-fetched? Believe me it isn't, and this is reality for an increasing number of them.

Funny you should say that as I'm on a forum where someone on benefits said pretty much just that not that long ago, namely that they would never accept a job as a cleaner as they'd be 'looked upon as scum'. By who? Their peers who regard them as mugs for doing a respectable job (and someone who cleans, or waits on people in a restaurant or whatever would always be respected by me)?

Do they think that being so choosy is going to earn respect instead?

I do sympathise when working might leave you worse off than living on benefits, but that means the system needs to be fixed. And people should realise that when you do have a job, you have a better quality of life; self respect, social contact etc.

A growing number of people now live without a TV license and use the internet instead. If she didn't have any 'luxury' items such as a phone, computer, etc, then I'd be more inclined to believe (s)he is in poverty (which is what you are trying to imply, right?)

Well, blame Apple, as many students in Hatfield (and I see enough of them every day) can 'afford' an iPhone, and few people will have one on a contract that is under £35 a month. That's about the same amount as they'd need to pay when they graduate and start earning £21k or more!

Peer pressure probably makes students feel forced to have an iPhone, MacBook and other expensive goods that could easily be replaced by cheaper things (a much cheaper phone, on prepay, or a £300 netbook) and if they make that choice then that's fine (we all want material goods these days) but don't moan about not having enough money.

Why do I just know that a TV licence will be at the bottom of the list of priorities. It was for me!

 

[scotsman]

Only people who earn higher amounts, who can afford to pay, will pay.

£21,000 is below the average wage (yes, so is £15k, but there was a £3000 cap then)

No-one is employed as a troublemaker.

You know what I mean! People who go out because they enjoy violence and fighting

People who go to uni should have their fees paid for by taxpayers? Many people who do not earn a lot of money will disagree with that.

But how are their children meant to go to University?

But we're not that rich any more.

Oh come off it, we are in the G7, we're not talking about Tanzania terms are we? No, we can afford luxuries, we live with a low doctor:citizen ration, our GDP is rather high.

People "cannot" do a course that attracts fees that only have to be repaid if they earn more than £21,000 per year? Come off it! That's a daft claim that is nonsensical.

The 'expense' does not have to be 'faced' until you are earning a salary that is good enough to be able to afford to pay it back!

But education should be free in the first place! Do you agree with the idea that fees should be based on your family's background? Given that those from a better off background will be able to pay more off earlier and face less interest repayments. The system is flawed and will benefit the richest the most.

Why should I pay more to travel to London because my line is more 'prestigious' than someone who lives in another city? Why should it cost more to live in a more 'prestigious' city? The list is endless...

But why? Someone from a poor background is going to look at Universities and think, do I go to the £3000 one or the £9000 one. Given that they'll be paying the interest back for longer, when someone

There is no profit to be found in student loans or running universities. Do you honestly think there is?
It doesn't really say a lot. A growing number of people now live without a TV license and use the internet instead. If she didn't have any 'luxury' items such as a phone, computer, etc, then I'd be more inclined to believe (s)he is in poverty (which is what you are trying to imply, right?)

Well, depends on whether working antisocial hours for 2 jobs on minimum wage to stay in a tiny flat could be classed as that. Not absolute poverty

What cuts do they propose instead? (or do they propose that this country goes bust?)

Gradual cuts, which would have also kept more people in jobs too.

What did they achieve taking this action compared to studying?

Drew attention to the cause that many people's future educations are in jeopardy, unfortunately for the wrong reasons because of a tiny majority of troublemakers/

Only if they are very stupid.

Which proves my point, they were there for the right reasons.

Do you agree when anyone goes on strike? Or protests?

 

[LE Greys]

It's for 'exceptional cases' with strings attached, however the propaganda that is being spouted by the protesters is that all courses will be charging £9,000. Also they will all go on to earn fatcat wages that mean they are worse off under the new system than the old system, apparently. And anyone who is going to be earning £30k+ can't possibly afford a few hundred quid of that going to repay the cost of educating them, that would be so unfair, wouldn't it?

If you ask some of them why they drop litter on the floor, the answer is "it's a cleaner's job" if you asked them if they are likely to become a cleaner, then the answer may well be "I wunt dare" then when they don't get the job of their dreams, they get benefits to sit around doing nothing while we bring people from overseas to do the jobs they don't want to do. Sounds far-fetched? Believe me it isn't, and this is reality for an increasing number of them. It's not the young people's fault; it's society that is to blame, giving unrealistic expectations and eroding their sense of responsibility. Of course, this describes a minority, but it is a significant and ever-increasing one. Worrying.

This is why sending more and more people to university is one of the most irresponsible things we can do. It devalues the status of a BSc, and raises people's hopes far too much. Is it very likely that someone with a cut-glass accent (which he only developed to fit in at school) and a BSc is going to get a job as a cleaner? The word "overqualified" gets heard a lot. I would take a cleaning job if there was one available locally that didn't have fifty people with previous experience chasing it. Then I might be able to use the money to fund my search for an agent, not to mention making a step towards paying off my loan. Trouble is, that simply doesn't happen.

It is. If someone is "unable to pay" (and earning £21,000 per year means you don't pay on the new system) then they do not pay.

I am on the existing system, which means that earning more than £15,000 means you are considered able to pay. I am lucky to be in that category, and I'm certainly not going to go round smashing bus stops because I am paying a few quid of that per month. Many people do not have jobs so it seems absolutely idiotic to moan at having to pay a small proportion of your salary when you are fortunate enough to be getting such a salary.

If the government really needs money, then it could simply remove every single tax deduction. People on higher incomes would then end up paying much more money (and be able to do their tax return on the back of an envelope). Surely that's far better than monetorising the cost of an education, which ultimately in many cases pays back to society in other ways.

 

[Geezertronic]

Looking at the disgraceful scenes at St Andrews football stadium after the Birmingham City v Aston Villa game, I fail to see the difference between these idiotic football fans (some of which I am ashamed to say I probably know from both sides of the fence) and the idiotic students causing criminal damage around the country

After the peaceful protests held by the Birmingham students earlier yesterday, it's a shame that the city of Birmingham is let down by the unruly minority.

 

[GB]

But education should be free in the first place

In a Utopian world maybe, as would the NHS and public transport. But as we all know nothing is free, it has to be paid for by someone and I do not see why the taxpayer has to keep opening their wallet for what is effectivly these days amoung many students, a lifestyle choice.

 

[Ferret]

In a Utopian world maybe, as would the NHS and public transport. But as we all know nothing is free, it has to be paid for by someone and I do not see why the taxpayer has to keep opening their wallet for what is effectivly these days amoung many students, a lifestyle choice.

I quite agree. Why should a low-paid person who pays tax have to subsidise those who go to University, when they'll end up earning more than him? Wrong wrong wrong.

 

[Nevasleep]

Just throwing it out there....
...but won't these changes cost more now?
The higher loans will still be from the gov, and these won't be paid off sooner due to increasing the repayment threshold.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I quite agree. Why should a low-paid person who pays tax have to subsidise those who go to University, when they'll end up earning more than him? Wrong wrong wrong.

I disagree. This isn't America, we pay our taxes to help each other, and the low-paid pay less, so only a tiny fraction goes towards higher education anyway.
I could argue I've never used X service, why should I pay for it...

Low-paid people still have the same opportunities to improve themselves, student loans, part time courses, open university.

 

[GB]

we pay our taxes to help each other,

Do we? I thought it was becuase paying taxes is a legal requirement?

and the low-paid pay less,

Yes the low paid pay less tax but being as they are low paid they are alot nearer "the bread line" than those on higher incomes and will feel the pinch a hell of alot more.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I quite agree. Why should a low-paid person who pays tax have to subsidise those who go to University, when they'll end up earning more than him? Wrong wrong wrong.

Why should my potential tax go towards the 'offence' budget? I don't support what the government are doing at the moment (i.e. Iraq).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Why should my potential tax go towards the 'offence' budget? I don't support what the government are doing at the moment (i.e. Iraq).

hock: Aisde from keeping troops there (a minimal number) for protection of the Army of Iraq (is it?) we have nothing to do with Iraq anymore... we are not actually in an official war in Iraq anymore.
Think you'll find most of our tax ends up in Brussels, hence the reason everyone is feeling the pinch.

 

[mumrar]

Why do students think that they should be exempt from budget cuts? People are losing their jobs, their homes and sometimes their families, due to the financial crisis and the budget cuts being made. Why should students be immune to this? People are having to make savings in their lives in the face of rising bills and falling incomes.

I have to say I don't see a lot of students who are poorly dressed (I notice the designer labels even if I own none), rarely are they not dripping in personal electronic equipment, and they seem quite fond of going out drinking many nights per week. Maybe they need to address their spending priorities, I'm sure they'll realise that they haven't been that poorly off if large swathes of them can afford to do this regularly.

It's all very well saying we shouldn't have elitist or 'rich-only' education, and people should be free to choose, but if it isn't financially viable then it just won't work. It doesn't matter how many city-centres you turn up to shouting or breaking things.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

hock: Aisde from keeping troops there (a minimal number) for protection of the Army of Iraq (is it?) we have nothing to do with Iraq anymore... we are not actually in an official war in Iraq anymore.
Think you'll find most of our tax ends up in Brussels, hence the reason everyone is feeling the pinch.

http://www.arewestilliniraq.com/

(And we never were in an official war. It was illegal.)

'most of our tax ends up in Brussels'
Do you have proof to back that up? Or is it just rhetoric?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

http://www.arewestilliniraq.com/

'most of our tax ends up in Brussels'
Do you have proof to back that up? Or is it just rhetoric?

But we are not in Iraq nearly as much as we were at the the height of conflict, which was the point I was making (I knew we were still technically in Iraq).

My comment you quoted and your responce shows that you know nothing about the EU....

 

[142094]

People who go to uni should have their fees paid for by taxpayers? Many people who do not earn a lot of money will disagree with that.

But then again graduates earn more over their lifetime than non-graduates, and therefore will pay more money in taxes as a result. You could also use the same argument that people without children are paying for someone else's child to go to school. Would you call this fair?

But we're not that rich any more.

I don't believe that. We are hardly in the same position as countries such as Ireland and Portugal. Funnily enough we can afford to give Ireland a £7bn loan, when it should be the Eurozone countries left to deal with that mess.

The 'expense' does not have to be 'faced' until you are earning a salary that is good enough to be able to afford to pay it back!

But at the same time this will put a lot of people off from going to university, and the majority of those will come from poorer backgrounds.

There is no profit to be found in student loans or running universities. Do you honestly think there is?

At present there isn't, the interest on student loans is supposed to be at the same level as what it costs the government to borrow this money. In future after 2012 there will be a huge profit to be made.

What cuts do they propose instead? (or do they propose that this country goes bust?)

This country is nowhere near going bust, nearly all of this talk about 'bankruptcy' is pure political spin designed to make people afraid and accept the policies being put down by the present government point blank. If we were really going bust, we wouldn't be ringfencing overseas aid spending on countries such as India and China (which IMO don't need it), nor would we be continuing with the pointless occupation of Iraq and Afganistan.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

My comment you quoted and your responce shows that you know nothing about the EU....

Do you even make NI contributions yet?

I'll give you another chance to come back with some proof, rather than insults, else I think we can all dismiss your comments as rhetoric.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Do you even make NI contributions yet?

I'll give you another chance to come back with some proof, rather than insults, else I think we can all dismiss your comments as rhetoric.

http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_eucosts.html

I would like to know exactly where and who I insulted.

And before you say that my link for info is s*ite, yours re: Iraq was hardly perfect either.

 

[scotsman]

In a Utopian world maybe, as would the NHS and public transport. But as we all know nothing is free, it has to be paid for by someone and I do not see why the taxpayer has to keep opening their wallet for what is effectivly these days amoung many students, a lifestyle choice.

The NHS is a neccessity, public transport isn't really in the same league/

It's also a lifestyle choice not to go to university, to use a car, to drink, to smoke, to not do either... the list goes on.


Surely if someone wants to further their education, then we should give the all the help they need?

Please tell me you're not the sort of people who think their road should be gritted because they pay more council tax than someone in another street...

 

[142094]

And the money they spent to do this, is coming from where exactly?

And the time they spent doing this, what would they have been doing if they hadn't done it?

Sounds suspiciously like they may have too much time/money on their hands to me.

You'll find that many universities have Wednesday's off, or the afternoon off, from teaching. A lot of the Student's Unions have been organising and paying for transport to London, and are fully self-financed.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Tell you what Scotsman, the NHS should stop paying for treatment for those with alcohol related illnesses/injures, smoking related illnesses/injuries, car accidents. Perhaps they should stop treating people in train crashes, or plane crashes. After all, going by train/plane, smoking, drinking, driving - they're all lifestyle choices.

That would be silly though wouldn't it...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Tell you what Scotsman, the NHS should stop paying for treatment for those with alcohol related illnesses/injures,

That would be silly though wouldn't it...

I would actually agree the NHS should stop treating people for alcohol-induced injuries (but only for those ones done on Friday and Saturday nights in Essex etc), you know the ones I mean.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_eucosts.html

I would like to know exactly where and who I insulted.

And before you say that my link for info is s*ite, yours re: Iraq was hardly perfect either.

I do like how your link uses the Bruges Group as an authoritative source!


Perhaps you would like to read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/sound_fin_mgt/myths_facts_other_en.htm


How many bureaucrats do you think there are in the EU?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would actually agree the NHS should stop treating people for alcohol-induced injuries (but only for those ones done on Friday and Saturday nights in Essex etc), you know the ones I mean.

Yes, let's spend some more taxes on a massive system to work out who sustained there injuries on a Friday or Saturday night in Essex... :roll:

 

[ainsworth74]

http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_eucosts.html

And before you say that my link for info is s*ite

I would like to know how they work out the majority of their costs. The only verifiable numbers I've seen on there are our direct contributions to the EU which amount to around £14bn. When you actually take account of money we receive back our net spend on the EU is less than £5bn which in the grand scheme of the UK budget is almost nothing.

Generally however that website screams bias rather than fact.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to say I don't see a lot of students who are poorly dressed (I notice the designer labels even if I own none), rarely are they not dripping in personal electronic equipment, and they seem quite fond of going out drinking many nights per week.

Have to say I agree with you here mumrar. I would love to know how my fellow students afford to go out 2-3 times a week, get every gadget under the sun (iPhone/iPod/Blackberry etc) as well as fancy clothes. Because on my budget there is no way in hell I can afford to do or buy things like that! The only expensive electronic thing I have (laptop) I saved a whole year to buy, my phone cost £30 and my MP3 is about 4 years old and only cost £12 at the time!

Where do they get the money for this and yet at the same time have the cheek to complain that fees are going up?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Yes, let's spend some more taxes on a massive system to work out who sustained there injuries on a Friday or Saturday night in Essex... :roll:

Thta's not what I meant, I hate to see people doing out to town on Frday and Saturday nights, get absolutely smashed, taking up high police numbers, and depending on the emergency services to get them home/take them to hospital when they OD on weed etc. That is what I do not like about it, i was only using the Essex topic as an example, not a standard.