-
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.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
PJV3
Member
There's some real plonkers in this country.
it's not like he was fooling anyone. the guy looks like he arrived by yacht
Theonik
Member
I guess it depends. For the German position the developers were unionised as well so pay wasn't so dependent on negotiation. UK everything goes obviously. Now, I've seen people get hired without degrees or with unrelated degrees all the time. Experience is the name of the game here though I suppose with no degree and experience breaking in must be challenging. I had both going in so my situation is different.
Audioboxer
Member
Great post, I will have to try and remember it for the next time I get into a conversation about these issues
A lot of it seems to be about perceptions. At times you can understand that Person A feels aggrieved that they are asked to contribute more than Person B. Where the conversation usually falls apart is that is how in-depth many get. Surface level perception of "unfairness". I should never have to contribute more than someone else. Whereas there are a lot of genuine reasons as to why societies end up asking those that are waaaaay ahead in the yearly incomes to help out a bit more.
It gets perceived to be a "Robin hood tax" and internalised as some sort of punishment for "working hard". It's neither, although I can see why "Robin hood tax" is used. Hence why you get the attitudes of I've worked hard for this money, I'm going to get my accountant getting me some of that tax avoidance and I'm going to vote for the party that protects my wealth. Therefore, okay, it's somewhat logical why some minds jump to fuck these poor people messing up my life and income. If these poor people didn't exist they wouldn't be coming after my money.... but then, that's where that small rant above comes in. Society is always going to need people at different levels of social/employment status to be there to do jobs and work that no one wants to do. Even with free education, not everyone is cut out for 4+ years of intensive study.
It's an "imperfect system" we have to try and keep a whole society functioning. Those at the top often do get relied on to ease things for everyone else. We can honestly debate about levels of taxation, as no, it's not fair to just have some sort of neverending levels of taxation for the wealthy. However, if you'd like to live in a functioning society and not just a private island, there's a good chance no matter where you go in the Western world if you're earning 6 figures a year you're going to be asked to contribute a bit more than someone on 4/5. Likewise, even as you come down in the numbers if you're above average things will start to escalate the further you get away from the average in regards to your tax levels.
Called that last night as well as 98% of the country. The only zero hour contract this chap is on is his Dad occasionally asking for help with the multi-million-pound business. "Preston you can drive the Porsche for the day on Monday if you can lend a hand on Saturday". "Jeremy I'm on a zero hour contract and it gives me the security to be a student". K bro. Get back to us when it's a Sports Direct zero hour contract.
I'd often rather people target politicians as it's part of their job to handle public criticism and feedback. However, when you go on national TV and be so disingenuous to try and fool a nation and influence a public election it's harder to have sympathy for you receiving criticism. Of course, I'd say to most people leave the kid alone (he doesn't deserve to be called a man) in terms of direct contact. Retweet some hypocrisy and have a despairing laugh at it, but don't go sending direct abuse on social media.
If anyone wants to leave the kid alone, you're better of trolling The Nuclear War Nine https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/870952562119323648
Wonderful.
So you're earning at least £60k 5 years after graduating. Would you be earning that much if you didn't get a degree? I doubt it. Seems like a low cost compared to how much extra earnings your degree will bring in over your lifetime.
Then surely he'd be paying more tax as a result of earning a higher amount? The principle is that higher education, like further, primary and secondary education, should be free to not only encourage people to study, but to allow ease of access to all. The tuition fees largely pay themselves off as graduates are more likely to earn higher amounts, so in a sense it also serves the country - an educated country leads to a richer country, which benefits all.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
When May went after the elderly, she basically hit the Daily Mail's core userbase.
Damn, I'm on about £28k after 3ish years experience (in Manchester)
I'm half German so have a German citizenship, and have been increasingly thinking of emigrating there since Brexit. That salary is just making it more tempting lol. The only problem is that my German is pretty bad, and only getting worse as I get older
Thanks though! Thats definitely something to keep in mind
Audioboxer
Member
You'd be happy with a say 60% income tax, after all you never see the money, it doesn't hit your bank account under PAYE.
naweednrahman
Member
I earn around £70k which is normal in my field. It's not that I have an issue with paying it off, because I do believe in tuition fees (to a certain extent). It's just once you consider the actual amount i'm paying off per month AND the amount of tax, if you look at the aggregated figure it does make achieving certain goals difficult i.e. that extra £400 on tuition repayments I could put into my savings for a house etc.
Correct. But the way the tuition system is now is pretty shit and has been for a long time.
I think tuition fees should be based on performance and there needs to be a floor and a cap. E.g.
Supposing a three-year degree. The first year of university everyone pays a flat amount, say £5000, each year, depending on your performance of exams etc you will pay £0 (supposing you get a 1st classification in your second year); £2500 if a 2:1; and £5000 for anything with 2:2 or less. Similar for your third year. The maximum amount you will spend on University will be £15k (with the lowest being £5k).
-Edit- just to give an illustration:
First year:
Tuition fee: £5000 entry fee.
Grade: 1st
Second year:
Tuition fee: £0 (because I obtained a 1st in my first year)
Grade 2:1
Third year
Tuition fee: £2500 (since I got a 2:1 in my second year).
Overall grade: 1st
Overall tuition fee payment = £5000 + 0 + 2500 = £7500
Which I think is okay given how much you pay is in YOUR hands.
Also there needs to be a bit of redistribution on where funding needs to go...I have an economics degree but I don't think its as important as medicine or some of the other sciences. I would much prefer some of my tuition fees get redistributed to those fields.
You still get a lot of people going to University and just not being productive and wasting time (they seem to forget they are paying for it...!). I think my proposal brings about a much better competitive atmosphere that really puts the emphasis on the student and how eager they want to be successful, Not just professionally but academically.
Audioboxer
Member
That sounds like some sort of Tory bootstraps tax. Instead of saying the poor people just don't work hard enough, cut any benefits they might get, it's the students who just don't work hard enough deserve to pay more for their tuition. Dude, seriously? Have you really thought this through? The reward for being capable of getting a higher rated degree is usually a better start in a career, or like in my field I basically need a 1:1 or 1:2 to stand a chance of getting a doctorate.
How about we just consider the fact no matter how hard everyone works some people aren't as gifted as others and will get a lower grade not because they're "lol mate lets hit up the pub instead of studying", but their capacities and abilities might be maxing out. It doesn't mean they are any less deserving of their degree, certainly not to the tune of you've to pay more because you're dumber than me.
I'm going to guess you got a 1:1 or 1:2 and it now rolls off the tongue "ask the people getting that 2:1 or 2:2 to pay more because they were time wasters". I appreciate you've articulated your idea, but I don't think I could fundamentally disagree anymore with trying to say people should pay more based on their grades. That's even worse than the current system in the rUK.
Tax =/= debt I suppose.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Punish the people who perform slightly worse with more debt than the people who have a better chance of going on to higher paid jobs. Great plan!
The IFS published a study on student loans in 2014 which you can find here:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r94.pdf
If you really want to know your stuff about them I'd recommend reading it but for me the headline was that even with ideal wage growth (which we don't currently have) the student loan system would probably only save the government 5% of what they would have spent under the old system, and even then the uncertainties around actually reclaiming the money (ie graduates who have left the country) mean the whole thing costs even more than was expected.
So it seems like long term it'll cost the same to have it as to not, which definitely makes me think we shouldn't have it at all.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r94.pdf
If you really want to know your stuff about them I'd recommend reading it but for me the headline was that even with ideal wage growth (which we don't currently have) the student loan system would probably only save the government 5% of what they would have spent under the old system, and even then the uncertainties around actually reclaiming the money (ie graduates who have left the country) mean the whole thing costs even more than was expected.
So it seems like long term it'll cost the same to have it as to not, which definitely makes me think we shouldn't have it at all.
naweednrahman
Member
I couldn't be more Tory lol (labour supporter given my family and background). Bro, I was the only east Londoner in my course. My class was full of posh kids (grammar, private schools, rich foreign students) it was quite strange the differences in our behaviour to study! Anyway, I did get a 2:1, I was so gutted I didn't get a 1st but I found out later after doing my second year exams that I have dyslexia. So in my final year I got a 1st and that made me really happy (but overall I could only achieve a 2:1). My point is this, University is one of those things, generally speaking, if you believe in yourself and what you can achieve you WILL achieve it!
That whole capacity and abilities maxing out is utter bullshit. There is no limit in life apart from yourself.
Although, I love competition, indirect or direct, I think it does bring out a bit more performance which is what I think we need in University. And I think bringing that about with the tuition fees works.
It is a tough world. But my figures are just examples...and deffo needs to be calibrated lol. On a serious note, Universities do need funding.
Tying cost to performance is very dangerous. It means that the odds are stacked - if you get a good degree, then you have no debt and a high likelihood of getting a job, whereas if you don't perform as well, then you have debt and a lower likelihood of getting a job - and the interest on the debt will stack up as you search for a job.
Just a guess, but I assume that that's what already happens. The money goes to the university, so they likely redistribute the funding across the departments according to need and worth, as opposed to each department getting its pot depending on its number of students.
A lack of productivity and drive can be avoided by investing in alternative types of training, such as apprenticeships, so that not going to university becomes a more viable option than everything requiring a degree. (Steps towards this have been taken in recent years.) Sure, your system brings a more competitive atmosphere, but universities should be places of study and learning, not financially focused. That's why I see it in the same way as all the other levels of education, it's simply allowing us to have educated citizens - university just becomes an opt out stage for those who'd rather follow a different path.
Audioboxer
Member
I wasn't necessarily trying to pin you down on who you do support, just saying it sounded like an idea that would be right out of a Tory manifesto.
I would heavily contest that second point. It may be true for the well-being and mental stability of most of our kids and population it is best to encourage, instil confidence in and try to show how study and work can turn into learning and ability. However, as imperfect as IQ testing is, it is a fact of life due to BOTH biological and environmental/social stimuli some people are at different stages of ability than others. Can bridges be lessened, sure, but the potential ability for everyone isn't necessarily limitless. Nor is it the same, we aren't clones.
Not everyone can be a doctor and surgeon no matter if you put the whole population into such a degree and told them "you can do it! work hard!". It's not unfair to honestly assess how humanity is, while at the same time yes we do try to be compassionate and encourage everyone to work hard and try and achieve what they want. Being honest doesn't have to mean being cruel.
Even with debating about that aside, those that are capable of getting a degree in a field through hard work aren't all going to come out with 1:1. You just said you came out with 2:1, so what is it for you? Did you just not work hard enough? Are you a slacker? Well, you told me you have dyslexia, so there is a biological reason that can have an impact on your studies and life that is no fault of your own. You should be paying more because of that? Cmon man, that is not a civilised way for a society to go. I'm saying that FOR your benefit as I think it would be ludicrous to ask you yourself to pay more because you got a 2:1.
Well there you have it
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-tory-tax-policy-rise-income-tax-national-insurance-higher-earners-general-election-2017-a7770581.html
No Tax Rises for the rich while not giving the same guarantee for increases at lower earners.
Add in a National Insurance rise and once again the Tories will try (and fail*) to balance the books on the backs of the poor.
*income inequality means the poorest 80% don't have enough money
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-tory-tax-policy-rise-income-tax-national-insurance-higher-earners-general-election-2017-a7770581.html
No Tax Rises for the rich while not giving the same guarantee for increases at lower earners.
Add in a National Insurance rise and once again the Tories will try (and fail*) to balance the books on the backs of the poor.
*income inequality means the poorest 80% don't have enough money
naweednrahman
Member
I don't think I did work hard enough in my first and partly my second year. I tried the usual 'master the exam papers' rather than the theory which is how the exams actually were (like in GCSE and A-LEVELs, as long as you did enough past papers you could get smashing grades lol...Uni exams weren't like that).
Obviously I was at a disadvantage and it's sad that I knew quite late on, but it is what it is. I know what i'm signing up for when i'm going to Uni. I'm not looking for excuses.
I do think we need to change the way some students behave when they are at Uni and we are in a world where money matters a lot. Whether you like it or not, that's how it is.
Like I said, there needs to be a cap and a floor and there needs to be SOMETHING that controls that - the only thing I could think of is how you perform in your exams since that is measurable.
Seen a few people on Twitter calling them the Nuclear Nine.
Apparently they got 30% of the questions to Jeremy Corbyn. Bunch of old twats.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Saw this myself, absolutely and ridiculously expected.
But let's see how the press cover this and if it has an effect.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Why are there people on earth who think it's a good idea to have people just out of their teens owe ~£50,000 to the government, when they can barely manage to buy their own homes or have the security to start families?
This is why Brexit and the tories happens.
People are just stupid fucking cunts.
Seen a few people on Twitter calling them the Nuclear Nine.
Apparently they got 30% of the questions to Jeremy Corbyn. Bunch of old twats.
This is why Brexit and the tories happens.
People are just stupid fucking cunts.
AHA-Lambda
Member
I am in no way shocked.
He seemed exactly the sort that just screams young tory.
Audioboxer
Member
A couple of things about students I'd ask you to think about
a) The average age
Most who go to study in full-time education are still relatively young. Still growing and massively lacking in life experience. Does that often manifest into people wanting to have fun, go out with friends and so on? Sure. However, that's often a part of growing in confidence/social skills and learning about yourself. That is like it or not a part of Uni for many, and while it should be a balancing act, some do need a bit of time to try and work that balance out.
b) Those that underachieve already face a consequence
Coming on from above, if your lifestyle and time spent going through maturity affect your studies and in turn your potential, that is your consequence. You end up potentially getting a lower grade. Employers might skip over you, or you might have to take up a position with lesser pay than someone else in your course who achieved a higher grade. That is the consequence. It shouldn't be that'll be another 5 grand please.
c) Complete time wasters are a minority
Like benefit fraud, which yes, does happen, it's a tyranny of a minority. A civilised society cannot take a nuke to attempting to combat the minorities who abuse so the whole damn population has to suffer too. This is the Tory excuse to lambaste the poor and disabled. Did you know people abuse benefits? That means we're going to make everyone suffer. Nah, it shouldn't be like that. In your scenario, you're making people like yourself with learning disabilities, or those that are maxing their potential ability suffer because you're obsessing over a small minority of students who will take the piss. It's not the way to go about it. No matter where you look in life there is abusers, chancers and cheats. Even up the top with the rich, you see money laundering, tax avoidance and other schemes. It happens everywhere, and while trying to chase after the abusers you always have to be wary of becoming an abuser yourself and hurting those undeserving. In terms of education, point b, you already face a consequence for not meeting your potential.
Theonik
Member
Charging people tuition based on their performance is pretty stupid not least of all because people who get better degrees get better pay out of university and are therefore better equipped to repay the debt. So you are actually losing the little money the tuition fees DO recover which is basically a punishment for the top graduates. It is pointless policy. Graduate pay is already a good incentive for people to perform in university. If that doesn't work nothing will.
Seen a few people on Twitter calling them the Nuclear Nine.
Apparently they got 30% of the questions to Jeremy Corbyn. Bunch of old twats.
Radicalised home grown extremists innit.
Even if not abolishing them, there's a very strong argument for lowering tuition fees from their current level on the basis that it doesn't really work. Only a third of students (I believe that's the correct figure) will ever pay off their loan, with the government effectively eating the loss on the remainder. Given that graduates now pay effectively 9pp more in income tax over £21,000, which is a pretty hefty amount, there's not really a viable way to get that money back from graduates directly. The only real option is whether the subsidy from the government is implicit as it is now or explicit.
PJV3
Member
We must do something about BRITS.
I was talking to some young people at work who said a lot of "youths on road are voting for Labour". Do rappers like JME really get the youth out to vote? As for other young people Corbyn has his fans according to fb.
Twitter comment that gave me a sensible chuckle...."CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTER!"
Wrestlemania
Banned
Just out:
18-24 year olds voting intention:
LAB: 68%
CON: 16%
LDEM: 8%
GRN: 3%
UKIP: 1%
(via @ICMResearch)
http://hopenothate.org.uk/2017/06/03/young-people-think-election/
FWIW, from speaking to my fellow young people I think turnout COULD (not will, but could) be much higher among young people, particularly university students and graduates than usual. The tuition fees pledge has got a lot of people on side, and I think a lot of recent graduates have bought into it as well in the expectation of debt relief.
That is the only problem with it as a policy: were Labour to somehow end up leading the next government, they'd have to write off the debt of anyone who paid £9000 a year or I think the backlash would be monumental. A loooot of people I've spoken to believe that Labour are going to write off their existing debt.
That is the only problem with it as a policy: were Labour to somehow end up leading the next government, they'd have to write off the debt of anyone who paid £9000 a year or I think the backlash would be monumental. A loooot of people I've spoken to believe that Labour are going to write off their existing debt.
Don Draper's Hat
Member
But will they actually get out to vote? It's all well and good saying who you'll vote for on the internet, it means fuck all if you don't follow through.
toythatkills
Member
Actual figures:
Couldn't be bothered to vote: 59%
My vote doesn't matter: 38%
Labour: 2%
Other: 1%
Audioboxer
Member
Most young people won't vote cause "they couldn't be bothered" or are "busy" or "have important things to do" or "have revision to do"
No matter the fact that in the same day they would procrastinate for hours between doing whatever it is that they want to do.
Celebrities, musicians with a young fanbase should encourage their fans to vote.
No matter the fact that in the same day they would procrastinate for hours between doing whatever it is that they want to do.
Celebrities, musicians with a young fanbase should encourage their fans to vote.
Theonik
Member
Not to play devil's advocate here but perhaps people on crazy 0hr contracts or working minimum wage jobs to get by might not have that much leeway to walk out and vote on a working day.
toythatkills
Member
If they're working from 7am to 10pm then they have bigger problems.
Wrestlemania
Banned
The article does also say "Nearly two-thirds of young people say that they are certain to vote in Thursdays General Election", I don't know if that's much different from how they typically answer that question though.
After the shit you said in the Maher thread you have no right to put others down.
If they want to vote then they will manage to find time to vote. Especially if they don't like zero hour contracts and want to vote Labour. That's really the long and short of it.
Voting stays open for like 15 hours...I doubt anyone would work 15 hours a day even on a zero hour contract on an election day nonetheless, a day they would have had known about for months in advance.
Regardless those people on zero hour contract would make a small percentage of the 60% or so young voters who don't won't. What about the rest?
Audioboxer
Member
Woohoo, Brown is back out in Scotland
Shame that barking up the "Unionists have to vote Labour" tree is what is causing this
It doesn't appear we're seeing a dramatic rise in Unionists, rather, they're abandoning Labour and swamping to the Tories. Says a lot for them mind you that they would abandon Labour for current day Tories. Hardly any respect for Scottish Tories given everything this country has fought to have/preserve and now you'd abandon one of the most progressive Labour manifestos to vote for this Tory manifesto.
That local election swing from Labour to Conservative.
Well played Scottish Labour.
Shame that barking up the "Unionists have to vote Labour" tree is what is causing this
It doesn't appear we're seeing a dramatic rise in Unionists, rather, they're abandoning Labour and swamping to the Tories. Says a lot for them mind you that they would abandon Labour for current day Tories. Hardly any respect for Scottish Tories given everything this country has fought to have/preserve and now you'd abandon one of the most progressive Labour manifestos to vote for this Tory manifesto.
That local election swing from Labour to Conservative.
Well played Scottish Labour.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked