The only difference is the cap to repayment is higher. The debt amount you'll be paying back is still orders of magnitude higher, and overall much, much worse.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
The only difference is the cap to repayment is higher. The debt amount you'll be paying back is still orders of magnitude higher, and overall much, much worse.
Nimbyism knows no bounds it appears.
I would argue that it's the less intellectually capable that would need government help financially before students. Students should be able to (in theory) leverage their education to find higher paid work in the long term more so than someone who struggled with education of which there are many.
The fact that students are now allowed to earn near the UK average before being asked to repay a small amount should help confidence in that the education received won't be repaid until it pays for itself.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Can you think of another monetary contribution they will make back which will increase as their salary increases?
Tax, what's your point?
Who claimed 300,000 people coming in to the country makes no difference factually? Pretty sure nobody in the thread has said that. You are conflating two different discussions and issues, that is that the living standards, rate of crime etc being worse in certain heavily migrant areas, are so because of socio economic reasons (which is as a result of a lack of funding, education, infrastructure etc) and not race, religion or nationality. Others, including me, have also stated that a lack of funding in to these areas could likely be because of the rate of immigration and impacts to council budgets.
As a side, lest we forget that European migrants do still make a net contribution to this country, a fact that is often ignored by many.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It is not an echo chamber though. There's plenty of right wing (and often decent) contributions from Cyclops Rock, kitch, Dan27, Nicktendo etc. etc. You just see what you want to see I guess?
I think you are constructing a strawman here. Nobody (that I can see) is saying immigration has no effect - population growth in general has an obvious impact on infrastructure. But is the problem here immigration or lack of investment in infrastructure? Given the low birth rates of british people in general, if we want population growth (for economic reasons) then we have to accomodate immigration. Which means actually, the problem is infrastructure.
Immigration has huge advantages, economically and culturally. Look at the explosion of UK cuisine in the last 20 years. Look at our research sectors. Look at our media. It can be fucking great. There have been regions - Bradford sticks in the mind - where communities have not integrated effectively. Racism has been used as a shield to cover abuse. But we notice that because it is different. White people - because that is what this is about, really - have so much trouble integrating with each other to begin with.
What people have been discussing is that UKIP support correlates with lower immigration rates. Which is peculiar.
Also aren't you an advocate for population control?
As to Tuition fees, the current system is generally better in terms of providing reasonable terms for poorer students than it was before. In real terms it is probably better. The problem many see with it (not I) is that the numbers are far larger and the hypothetical burden of that is incredibly offputting for many, particularly poorer students. This is a real concern, despite the factual benefits of the new system vs. the old. I work in uni recruitment and speak to hundreds of prospective students every year so I have a bit of an insight into this.
Also, many of those who oppose the raising of fees are angry either because of the Lib Dem lie (justifiable) or because they believe fees should be free, which is a different kettle of fish.
More people paying tax not resulting in more public service spending to make up for it most certainly doesn't seem like an immigration issue. The number coming in is quite high, but if you're letting them in than the extra tax income needs to have the appropriate amount spent on supporting that population.
thequickandthedead
Member
Haven't really been following the election but would a Labour-SNP coalition really be as disastrous as the media is claiming?
The world would literally cease to exist
Ed Miliband has also said flat out he won't do it.
That's a pretty strange way to look at things. I'd rather pay a considerably smaller sum at a lower salary, than a much higher debt, that I'd have to repay over more of my life, at a higher salary.
It really boils down to before paying back £9,000 total, but only once you start earning £17,335, versus now having to pay back £27,000 total, but only once you start earning £21,000. Only a fool would pick or prefer the latter. And this is ignoring the cost of living and rent, which is also at an all time high.
Honestly, it's outrageous that university fees are so high. Disgusting even. The pay back rate being slightly higher is small consolation that is little more than a tiny towel to soften the massive blow. It's depressing that we've gone from outright grants, to £1300 fees, to £3000 fees, to now £9000 fees. Like I said, it's making further education an even greater burden.
No, but it would be disastrous to Labour in the long run, which is why it won't happen. If they did it, they effectively legitimise the SNP's campaign to leave the UK and Labour lose those Scottish seats forever.
All immigration should provide net benefit or there is no point in having it though. There's costs other than fiscal that need considering at the moment.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I think uni fees should be free (but the system completely restructured) BUT the rise in fees is not disgusting. The lie over it, yes, but they did a good job reconfiguring the system to accomodate for poorer families. Paying triple is obviously worse, but it ends up being a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things rather than the burden that most other loans are.
However the sheer numbers DO put off poorer families disproportionately. That is not the intention but it does happen. Speaking from a lot of experience here.
All of the population should provide a net benefit.
How do you even measure that?!
Wrestlemania
Banned
I'm not so sure that it isn't.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't believe that at all. Everyone wants a more skilled workforce (which doesn't have to mean uni, of course), left and right, whilst the right likes that it is embedded in a market structure. I think it is easy to see conspiracy and evil but this is not that.
How would you fund universities then? Just out of general taxes?
The current system isn't much different except the successful graduates pay an additional tax. And the rich who can afford it pay directly into the system if they want to.
Marc
Member
Crab/King Moc concluded UKIP were not based on factual change as the polling data were in places with low immigration. Which doesn't account for the fact people move, most people in a area heavy on migrants would by definition have moved since the population has shifted.
I didn't mention crime? Most migrants are on lower wages though, poor areas have more crime for obvious reasons. Not their fault but that is more likely to happen. Also from my point of view there were lots of trouble from different migrant groups who essentially hated each other. Its also a case of population density increasing discord. How exactly are you investing in areas where they are paying almost no tax or soon to be no tax at all? Most are unskilled workers undercutting wages and driving them down, which of course limits their options and the minimum wage let alone zero hours work is completely unaffordable to live a decent life. Which again would create problems in itself. Having huge increase in population that can pay less tax to their area is going to result in a strain of service. I think the country is too populated as a whole anyway, that includes the home nations and should be doing more to drive the population down.
Can you provide your source on that, I have seen that given before and then found the conclusion was based on several assumptions. And didn't account for impact on services and their cost by any stretch. Btw, you say no one is saying it has no impact and then argue the proof says it gives a net benefit. So you are saying that population increase has an impact but it is a good one, is that a correct appraisal?
I saw many examples of making it about race and by defunct saying people with those views of being racist, being ignorant and general ad hominem's and raised it before. I saw those other voices drown out and shouted down with such opinions rather than facts and for it to be a patting on the back exercise at this point rather than actual debate. The fact you have missed all that suggest you do indeed see what you want to see. I imagine I will get a 5 to 1 response rate with variations of the same ideas so impossible to keep up with, roughly what I got before anyway. Which is fine if it is a debate, but the pretty ugly accusations and statements made on this issue is really out of order at times. And the left having this thought crime mentality is not good in general.
Ok, covered this above, but ok so you agree migration is out of control so UKIP are a valid voting option. Good, I must be way off base then as I got the completely opposite impression with all the verbal attacks. And the same for 'everyone' in the thread as you say. So low skilled workers at sizes of cities coming in is somehow going to provide enough tax to pay for all the housing, extra schools, extra power stations, extra water supplies, extra hospitals, extra GP's and on and on and on. How much investment are you talking here to provide for a city every year? A city that could almost enter the top ten of city populations for England. How much would it be to build a Coventry every year? Do you believe that low income tax can pay for this, soon to be pretty much no tax at all by most parties plans.
Why do you want population growth for economic reasons? What does society as a whole gain from this. This is the worst bit about capitalism and the assumed growth for the sake of it is impossible and unsustainable.
Except the strawman you build is saying there would be NO immigration. That cuisine growth and research or whatever you want to put up was achievable with the tens of thousands of immigrants. And by filtering based on skillset of a person. Our media? White people integrating, can you clarify this point as I don't follow it.
Again, how do those figures not make sense? Ok, so an example of an area I lived. Migrants came in huge waves due to cheap housing at the time, housing prices go down relatively. Changes in the community happen such as shops dedicated to migrants, people beforehand tend to move on elsewhere with a bad impression of a fractured society caused by rapid migration levels. Lots of social issues due to lack of integration that is physically impossible and no ones fault. Quality of life goes down for everyone, the ironic thing is there is more racism between the different ethnic groups who have historically hated each other. The population of london as an example as you guys say has been heavily changed by immigration, yet you assume no one left? Where did you think all those British people went? They moved further out of London, which has driven up house prices in the boroughs as an example and you'll see from things such as train travel stats that pressure is huge.
Not sure the tuition stuff is aimed at me, I think fees should be free for essential or useful areas. Sciences, medicine, engineering etc. should be free IMO.
The current population provide what they provide. You correctly state that it should be a net benefit.
Inviting others here should only be done
if there's a net benefit to it and that should include social costs otherwise there's no point for anyone including the immigrants of inviting them here.
With regards uni fees it's nice to want free stuff. I still think that a contribution should be made, albeit how much is up for debate in my head.
I agree that there should be tuition fees nowadays. 20-30 years ago when only 10% went to uni and they all ended up getting good jobs and paying high taxes it was fine. But now that it's 45% i'm not so sure. Saddling working class people with £27k of debt before they've even started work does seem like way too big a burden though.
It does today but 25-30 years of inflation will make the repayments next to nowt.
CyclopsRock
Member
It works out as a de facto graduation tax. Isn't that what most people wanted (and the opposition proposed) anyway? This way (more of) the cost of degrees is borne by those that chiefly benefit from having them. Personally I like it.
It probably will, but more needs to be done to encourage the poor to not give up before they've even started. Right now a lot of them are looking at the option of going to uni and are just being completely demoralised by it. It's harder than ever to buy a house, plus they'll have that on top of it. From the off, they feel like they're being fucked over big time.
I remember reading that the higher cap meant that overall the government hasn't saved any more money at all. The change was utterly pointless.
It's not traditional debt though. It's almost like saying I'm hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt because I need to pay income tax for the rest of my working life.
It kept Universities funded which wasn't guaranteed if they didn't make changes.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
This is true. But the prospect of 27,000 of debt is very unappealing to many, especially working class, potential students. This is despite it being the best loan you'll ever receive. I work in uni recruitment so I speak to hundreds of people about this so i know my shit
( I'll respond to some of the earlier comments when not on heavy painkillers lol)
As shitty as it was for the LDs to go back on what they made out to be an iron clad promise, I think the new fees system probably is a lot better for people who leave uni and end up not earning more than £25k or so.
It should be replaced with a proper graduate tax rather than just being very similar to one though. As much as it's not "real debt" that £27k + maintenance loan figure will scare a lot of people off further education.
It should be replaced with a proper graduate tax rather than just being very similar to one though. As much as it's not "real debt" that £27k + maintenance loan figure will scare a lot of people off further education.
This isn't true at all (I'd know, I worked at my local tesco for about a month not long ago).
Yeah, i guess people will take it as a temporary job, but not for that long. £15k-ish a year, low-level admin jobs on the other hand are full of them.
My bad I was talking figuratively, to clarify poorly paid jobs are full of people with degrees, as unless you do a core subject, I feel they can look a bit well, pointless...
Socialology as an example.....
This is also been realised by the education sector as now you also have sit another exam, where as before just a degree would not been enough to get your pgce....
I am not trying to say degrees are easy, God knows my wife worked hard on hers, but I feel degrees need to be more suitable for purpose, I don't see the point in someone getting 50 grand into debt to do sociology
Socialology as an example.....
This is also been realised by the education sector as now you also have sit another exam, where as before just a degree would not been enough to get your pgce....
I am not trying to say degrees are easy, God knows my wife worked hard on hers, but I feel degrees need to be more suitable for purpose, I don't see the point in someone getting 50 grand into debt to do sociology
What some students need to realise is that all the education in the world does not guarantee a job, never mind a high paid one.
They should ideally obtain as many employer references as physically possible to go with it.
It's hard for an employer interviewing an ex student with no references as anything other than a person who has spent the last four years on the lash.
I honestly think it's less about what you do and more about why you do it. If someone is really interested in sociology and really wants to learn about it and is willing to work hard to one day get a job related to it, I'd argue that's not a bad thing.
It's when people choose to go to uni first and then decide what they want to do at uni: "I guess sociology is kind of interesting.. I'll just pick that because I need to pick something because I don't want to start actually working yet", that you get problems imo.
It's when people choose to go to uni first and then decide what they want to do at uni: "I guess sociology is kind of interesting.. I'll just pick that because I need to pick something because I don't want to start actually working yet", that you get problems imo.
Isn't University the dole equivalent for the young middle class?
This is so me it's scary. Except I chose Social Science, dropped out in Year 2 and still have no idea what I want to do.
I couldn't go to uni as I had to drop out of college, but ended up falling into a career path accidentally that has treated me very well. Then I see my friends that went to uni scrapping for any opportunity they can get.
I do think university needs to stop being held up as the one true path if you have any intelligence at all, but if you know what you're doing, it can very much be the right path.
I do think university needs to stop being held up as the one true path if you have any intelligence at all, but if you know what you're doing, it can very much be the right path.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Didnt Ronnie get demolished last week? Endorsed by a loser, who the hell is running Eds campaign?
Eh? He's the most popular snooker player in the last 20 years.
Survation have made their Final Call in the MoS:
HEADLINE VI Survation/MoS LAB 34%; CON 31%; UKIP 17%; LD 8%; SNP 5%; GRE 4%; OTH 1%
They also did an interesting poll alongside this, with each respondent shown the actual ballot paper from their actual constituency, rather than a generic voting question:
BALLOT VI Survation/MoS: LAB 33%; CON 29%; LD 9%; UKIP 16%; GRE 6%; SNP 4%; PC 1%; OTH 2%
The figures are so similar that it's hard to draw any firm conclusions considering the margin of error. Safe to say that if either of these are close to the result, we're looking at a Labour led government.
When it comes down to it, immigration has been a massive benefit to this country historically, and continues to be so today. Cowardly politicians, wankers looking to sell newspapers, and a small core of racists have poisoned the public discourse on the subject.
We would be fucked beyond belief if immigration was curbed in the way that UKIP want it to be, that the Tories lie about wanting it to be, or that Labour coyly pretends it wants it to be. And they all know that we'd be fucked. UKIP are racist or deluded enough not to care. The Tories know they can get away with lying about it and not actually doing anything. Labour just wants the entire issue to fuck off into space.
HEADLINE VI Survation/MoS LAB 34%; CON 31%; UKIP 17%; LD 8%; SNP 5%; GRE 4%; OTH 1%
They also did an interesting poll alongside this, with each respondent shown the actual ballot paper from their actual constituency, rather than a generic voting question:
BALLOT VI Survation/MoS: LAB 33%; CON 29%; LD 9%; UKIP 16%; GRE 6%; SNP 4%; PC 1%; OTH 2%
The figures are so similar that it's hard to draw any firm conclusions considering the margin of error. Safe to say that if either of these are close to the result, we're looking at a Labour led government.
When it comes down to it, immigration has been a massive benefit to this country historically, and continues to be so today. Cowardly politicians, wankers looking to sell newspapers, and a small core of racists have poisoned the public discourse on the subject.
We would be fucked beyond belief if immigration was curbed in the way that UKIP want it to be, that the Tories lie about wanting it to be, or that Labour coyly pretends it wants it to be. And they all know that we'd be fucked. UKIP are racist or deluded enough not to care. The Tories know they can get away with lying about it and not actually doing anything. Labour just wants the entire issue to fuck off into space.
Labour did at least say that immigrants were going to require English lessons, which would help with integration, hopefully. That's one of my main gripes with immigration.
StealthGoblin
Banned
It annoys me that a 5% of the vote party may potentially have a significant input to the government.
Whole system needs an overhaul.
Whole system needs an overhaul.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
That in itself is reason to feel good.
Tories have thrown the entire kitchen sink at this one and nothing has budged.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked