On 29 Nov 2010 at 7:08pm Bucking bronco wrote:
Just had an email from Priory saying that the "fight the fees" group are holding a peaceful candle light protest in Brighton tomorrow.
As it's now
1) in their own time, and
2) peaceful
I wonder how many of the truants will join this one.
Not many methinks
On 29 Nov 2010 at 8:06pm Lopster wrote:
hopefully the smokers will go so that they have something to light the candles with..
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:22am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Lit candles, they are actually going to set fire to candles!!!!! I hope they've been through all the health and safety courses for such things. I want to know what the parents are doing!!!!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:31am Mr Forks wrote:
Lit candles, that'll really change the world. Plus i'm sure all the skiving kiddies from Priory wont go as they don't get a chance to miss school. Lazy middle class kids, instead of going to uni they should get a proper job!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 10:26am lumpen proletariat wrote:
Too right Mr F, this country would run so much better without any uni-educated people wouldn't it. Nurses, teachers, who needs 'em eh? That fine down-to-earth man of the people Mr Pol Pot had the right idea, cleanse the intellectuals!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 11:32am Old Bill wrote:
Read Mr Forks post properly lumpen. He is talking about the lazy middle class kids. These are not the people who go on to be nurses, teachers etc., they are the ones who think they are entitled to a 3 or 4 year state sponsored piss up.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 12:33pm Not again wrote:
Oh, it's always the rotten middle class spoiling everything. Fact is, we used to have a system where 10-20% went to Uni - very much the middle class - and it all worked fine. Unfortunately now we're up to 40% and it's the idiot working class thicks thinking they deserve their Uni place who have ruined it for everyone.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 12:44pm Mr Forks wrote:
It's the bloody middle class oiks who just want 3 years off from getting a proper job that are the problem. Also the fact that Uni's offer pointless courses such as Media Studies and other 'invented' degrees. Why should the tax payers of this country subsidise students to do these courses. If they want to study that much then they should be prepared to pay for it, the reason there protesting is they don't wont to have to pay for there education, well I've got news for you, why should I pay for your education?
On 30 Nov 2010 at 1:55pm The Boss wrote:
Couldn't agree more. The best way to make sure the poor stupid working class stay just that.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 4:30pm homesick wrote:
Mr Forks etc - I went to uni late - so did my hubby - we don't come from the sort of background where it was expected. Before uni we did manual work, shop work etc. Thanks to getting a grant and going to uni we have been higher rate tax payers virtually ever since.
Sorry to spoil your theories but we are exactly the sort of people who would (and still do) go on demos and we fully support the protests at the moment.
I would never have thought of going to college without a grant. The debt would have scared me stiff.
What a waste if only those from rich families go to uni. How very bad for the country too.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 4:39pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Nothing to do with having to be rich. You don't have to pay up front, only when you get the benefit of higher salary because you've got a degree.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 4:56pm MC wrote:
Who do you think is likely to be more put off higher education by having to borrow tens of thousand of pounds, the working or the middle class?
On 30 Nov 2010 at 4:56pm homesick wrote:
I've already paid - many times over - through my tax. I don't see why I should pay yet again.
The debt hanging over me would have put me off completely.
We should all pay for education because it benefits everyone in society.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 5:37pm Old Bill wrote:
We do all pay for education Homesick. It's called school. We all pay for it out of our taxes. If you want to have the chance of a higher paid job, then why should I pay for your further education? You say we all benefit, its just that we don't benefit as much as you. You say yourself you have been a higher rate tax payer ever since you left uni, well in the 30 years since I left school I have not once been a higher rate payer. You want the higher salary, but think I should pay to make it available to you. Nice. You pay for it only when you can afford it, but if you went straight on to such a salary after leaving uni, then you could easily pay for it in full out of your first years salary and still have more left than most non graduates. Besides, if none of this was paid for out of your tax, then there would be more tax payers money around to pay for other services, or, heaven forbid, the tax bill might go down. So we would still all benefit. Even you.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 5:47pm Down and Out wrote:
On average and over a lifetime, current graduates pay far more tax than non-graduates, so the simple fact is that they (oh, alright then, we) are already paying for the extra cost of our education. Tuition fees just mean that you have to pay for your education twice over.
You, Old Bill, are not paying a penny for me, but I'm subsidising you.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 6:39pm homesick wrote:
Exactly down and out
I'm also concerned about people like teachers and nurses who need degrees for their jobs but don't get massive pay to go with it.
Graduates generally put more back into society than they take out - in one way or another.
btw - I wasn't a higher rate payer straight away - wish it was that easy - but have been for some time.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 6:44pm Deelite wrote:
Woopee, a country full of uneducated unwashed proles, if they are lucky exploited by a small set of the hereditary rich who can afford education.
Rule Brittania!
You lot obviously did not go to University. Not just uneducated but stupid, bitter, small-minded little trolls.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:04pm Hay Nonnie Mouse wrote:
You see the problem is students do nothing to help themselves by being drunk and obnoxious a lot of the time. If University hours were a little more like work(Thus preparing said students for said work) then it would go a long way to people not feeling ripped off by students. Then we really could say they can't work and study, give them a grant. Most don't really complain about the education bit but it's the other 23 hours a day(Kidding!) which are a problem. I generally had a couple of hours lectures a day, inbetween holidays - I worked in Brighton for the rest of the day, then came home and studied. I know I should have been working on my coursework all day, but if it isn't timetabled you can work or some choose to be dossing around most of the time.
Once again., can I say, I'm all for education. But, if courses really were full time, and students appeared to be getting a full education for tax payers money, I don't think people would be so upset.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:08pm Mr Forks wrote:
I currently work full time and am studing for a degree in the evenings. Not sure why most students can't do this rather than study for three years while doing no work and letting the state pay! At least this way I finish studying with no debts.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 9:51pm Old Bill wrote:
D&O, you go on about graduates paying more tax than us mere mortals as if that is such a terrible thing. You conveniently forget that in order to pay more tax, you have to actually be paid more, and of course have the added inconvenience of taking home more than us as well, so please don't come on all hard done by. Furthermore, you argue that if you pay tuition fees and tax, you are paying for your education twice. By that reasoning, us non-graduates tax payers are paying once for an education that we have never had the benefit of at all. Why sould we do that? I suppose in your highly educated mind that is OK? In reality though our contribution is actually paying the lions share of your education, so perhaps you could substantiate your comment that you are subsidising me. I would be very interested to hear about that.
As for Homesick, you were the one who said 'we have been higher rate tax payers virtually ever since'. Nurses and teachers meanwhile have as much opportunity as anyone to make career choices, and besides, they do not have to pay anything back until they are on a high enough salary. You say that 'graduates generally put more back into society than they take out' - what elitist rubbish. They only put in what they are paid for, the same as everyone else. I wonder how many nurses salaries (who don't necessarily have to have a degree by the way) it cost the taxpayer to police all of the demonstrations and pay for all the damage caused by our wonderful socially aware students over the last week or so. Thanks guys.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 12:34am student wrote:
University isn't simply about getting more money. If you were a student who works their arse off and spends most of their time stressed, people might realise it isn't just 4 year piss up.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 8:24am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Homesick and Deelite, you are paying higher taxes because the tax system requires you to pay income tax at a higher rate because you earn a higher salary, in exactly the same way as anyone else on such a salary whether they went to university or not. If you can't see that then it really was a wasted university education.
@Deelite "a small set of the hereditary rich who can afford education." Anyone can afford a university education. No-one is being asked to pay up front. You only have to pay when you are earning enough to pay for it.
Old Bill you are spot on.
I don't think "student" has convinced many!
On 1 Dec 2010 at 10:16am Ed Can Do wrote:
I was lucky enough to go to Uni before they invented fees and to be honest, I pretty much treated it as a three year drinking session. I didn't get a grant or anything, I got a student loan which one day I might start earning enough to have to pay back (Ten years a graduate and still sneaking by under the repayment threshold). I honestly think that if I'd had to pay to go to Uni I might have actually turned up and paid attention more often. Don't get me wrong, I did learn some stuff and it's been useful to me since but I reckon if it had been potentially costing me £9,000 a year, I'd have tried a lot harder and got a lot more out of it. I might have done a more practical course too (Economics and IT is more useful than anything ending in "Studies" but still has relatively few real life applications).
I would like to say a big thank you though to everyone who pays their taxes or at least did at the end of the 90's for allowing me to spend three years getting drunk and putting off getting a proper job.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 12:10pm Old Bill wrote:
Just read Deelite's post from last night. What an absolute idiot. If you did not go to universtity you are uneducated, small minded and bitter! It sounds like he/she is the one that fit's into that category. If he/she had a universtity education just to come out with nonsense like that then I think he/she should definitely pay for it.
I know plenty of people that have had a university education (regardless of who paid for it) and whilst they might be very well versed in their own chosen subject, they are lacking in even a basic knowledge of virtually everything else. Even common sense and reason goes out of the window with some of them. I also know people that did not go to university and have a huge breadth of knowledge and understanding in a whole variety of subjects. Yes, of course there are those who fit the Deelite stereotype, but to make such sweeping ill informed generalisations clearly demonstrates that education does not necessarily equal intelligence.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 12:10pm homesick wrote:
We all pay for services we don't use. I am paying to educate other people's children as I don't have any of my own and I'm glad to do so. I'm also paying for many health treatments that I will never need as well as the ones I will. There is such a thing as society.
Ed can do - I wish you'd got more out of your education too. Then you might have realised that a degree is not a vocational subject or job training, but should, done properly teach you how to think and analyse and open your mind. BTW I didn't do a 'studies' degree.
You may have come from the kind of background where debt is not off-putting. A lot of people don't.
'ere be monsters - you are missing the point. I couldn't have earned anything like what I can earn now without a degree. They simply don't give out jobs in my field because you've got a couple of GCSEs.
ed can do - thank yourself - hopefully one day you will repay society's faith in you in some way.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 1:04pm jrsussex wrote:
Rather silly to claim you couldn't have earned anything like what you earn now. School friend of mine, left school at 15, no qualifications built a business which he started when he was 31 and sold when he was 53. he got 6.2m for it. Another, again no qulaifications, but had the added disadvantage of being unable to read and write, retired at 60 a millionaire.
Lord Sugar another example of a man not having a degree. There are thousands of such examples out in the real world as there are examples of those with degrees that are in low-paid employment. Much of it is down to personal drive to improve ones life, education or not.
I do have to agree with the comment by Old Bill, in that I personally have met many well educated people who do not appear to have an iota of common sense, which is one of life's essential aids.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 1:30pm homesick wrote:
Maybe if you'd been to uni you would understand that anecdotal evidence is not the same as real evidence and the real evidence is that graduates earn more and therefore pay more tax.
Common sense is lovely - and no - they probably don't teach it at uni. I think it's fairly evenly distributed throughout the population.
Of course if you don't see any value to education then there's not a lot of point discussing it.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 2:00pm Down and Out wrote:
Old Bill - you suggest I'm saying I'm hard done to. That wasn't what I said at all. You asked me to explain why I'm subsidising you. For a start, the simple fact is that 90% of higher rate tax payers are graduates, however many anecdotes jrsussex comes out with.
We all pay tax, and we all derive benefit for it, whether that benefit is national defence, state pension, teaching or whatever. Aside from the items which benefit us all equally - like national defence, say - a lot of what government gives out is means tested. So it follows that anyone who pays above average tax is in effect subsidising the benefits to anyone who pays less than average tax.
Now, I don't have a problem with this idea at all. As Homesick says, this is about being a society. What I do object to is this kind of whiney self-righteous 'Well I'm not paying my taxes for you' outlook. The point is that we're all in this together. Once you go down the route of saying that any individual's taxes should only go towards things they derive benefit from, you might as well say that people without children should not pay for schools, that we shouldn't have national health insurance or that your road tax should not be used to repair a road in Cumbria that you're never going to drive down. Which is when society as we understand it would fall apart. Of course the people who would be hardest hit if that type of arrangement were in place would be anyone who earns less than the average (and I'd be much better off as an individual). My point in saying that I'm subsidising you was just to highlight how stupid the idea that any individual owns the right to their own tax payments is.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 2:19pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
@ homethick you are missing the point. I couldn't have earned anything like what I can earn now without a degree. They simply don't give out jobs in my field because you've got a couple of GCSEs.
I'm getting the point. You are paying tax at the rate for your salary not your education. You are also not paying any more tax on your earnings up to the level where it increases than anyone else. jrs and Old Bill have shown you do not need a degree to pay loads of extra tax. Why should you think it is your right to have the added education needed to get the salary you do? Lorry drivers, delivery drivers, postmen, bus and coach drivers, commercial pilots and a whole host of other occupations that require licences to carry out their jobs have to pay for their education in their chosen fields, why shouldn't you?
On 1 Dec 2010 at 2:28pm Old Bill wrote:
To be honest Homesick, the winner of this weeks prize for continually missing the point (if not for being a condescending ****) has got to be you. No one is disputing the value of education, or that you can expect to get a better job as a result of it. The dispute is about who pays for you to have that head start. Trouble is you are too busy believing that you can walk on water because you went to uni that you cannot see the real issues. You just believe that someone else should pay, that the poor should finance you you on you way to a more wealthy life. Then to cap it all you grizzle about the fact that you earn so much money that you pay more tax on it (you would pay even more if they abandoned tuition fees) Your chance to pay society back for the priviliged position it has helped to put you in, would be to pay back some of the cost of you getting there.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 3:06pm not from around here wrote:
Ok Homesick - you are defending the protests against cuts? So bearing in mind that the current situation is not sustainable - more & more young people wanting to go to university and not enough money to fund them - can you suggest what the alternative is to students making a higher contribution? Are you suggesting that all income tax should go up just to fund more & more students?
Incidentally I worked with a student recently and even he was complaining about the small number of structured hours a week he received as part of his university course. Many courses could be compressed into 2 or even one year if lectures were 5 days a week.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 3:56pm homesick wrote:
Once again, for the hard of understanding, graduates pay through the tax on their (usually) higher earnings. I'm not grizzling - I think that it's right to pay tax and I think that it's right that those who earn more, pay more - how difficult is this to understand.
I don't want to pay yet again though - or to have young people start their lives deep in debt?
I doubt if your student was really complaining nfrh. He should have been reading books and doing course work. Many degrees require you to read a hell of a lot of books - they are not, repeat not, training schemes or vocational training.
I can't walk on water - but I'm a bloody good swimmer.
BTW - nobody has explained yet why it is ok for me to pay for other people's kids to go to school, (not that I am complaining) but not ok to pay for uni for the more academic kids.
Shall we all become a nation of lorry drivers and postmen? What a waste. How alarming.
BTW so many of you have resorted to silly rudeness I'd just like to tell you that I got a grant for the last year of school and a for masters degree too!!! Ha ha ha. That's 3 grants guys.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 3:59pm not from around here wrote:
So once again Homesick, what is YOUR solution to the funding shortfall?
On 1 Dec 2010 at 4:05pm homesick wrote:
TAX!!! and if necessary higher taxes for the rich - many of whom will be graduates. Simples.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 4:14pm not from around here wrote:
Just spotted another point in your post Homesick. Yes this student I mentioned was complaining - as he thought that there could have been more lectures etc and he was not happy as he was paying £3000+ pounds a year to do 'not very much' most of the time. (When students pay more per year I dare say it will be them that demand that uni's get their act together and make the courses more efficient)
In fact he managed to do all his coursework and work with me and go out regularly and get drunk. I'm wondering how students manage to get so drunk when they are supposedly so poor? I used to live in a street in Brighton which became very popular for letting to students - in fact it ruined the whole street with families choosing to move out due to the noise from 'hard-working' students. It was also noticeable how many 'poor' students (having been out drinking all night in central Brighton) then also managed to afford a taxi home. Having lived 'among' students there is no way on earth you will convince me that they work as hard as you say or that they are as impoverished as you say.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 4:16pm not from around here wrote:
So, let me get this straight. You have already grumbled about paying tax at the higher rate but you are now saying that you are happy to pay more? I refer you to the above to see why this is NOT money well spent.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 4:20pm not from around here wrote:
Higher rate taxes apply to those who earn more - just think of the tuition fees repayments as a very well-targeted higher rate tax - does that satisfy your demand for higher taxes?
Also anybody earning £22K a year will pay back £7.50 a month AND they don't have to pay up front.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 4:32pm homesick wrote:
More anecdotal evidence.
Some students have a lot more money than others and are heavily subsidised by their families. Others are not. I can assure you that getting a taxi was beyond my wildest dreams in those days and a lot of hitchhiking went on which was probably not a good idea.
How hard did I say they worked? I can't remember saying that students were slaves to their course work. We got the work done, and because it was interesting it didn't always feel like work.
Students get drunk. They have a laugh. They probably steal temporary bus stops and use them as coat stands too (I never did this).
I never, in any of my posts said that they didn't have fun too - or that some of them seem to coast - these usually are the same ones who are working all night to get their work finished.
You are right that some lecturers could do with a kick up the bum - but they are the minority.
My education opened up whole new worlds to me and blew my mind - it was fantastic for me and for my husband and changed us forever. One of those changes was that our prospects improved . Another is that it gave us much more confidence in dealing with the world even though we came from backgrounds with lowered expectations. I absolutely loved it and would want everyone to have the same chances. And to add to all this our taxes have probably paid for quite a few of your kids to go to school. That's fine by us, and that's all I have to say on the matter.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 4:47pm not from around here wrote:
Just for the record - I don't have kids.. but anyway.
I assume the point you are making Homesick is that you were given an opportunity that you REALLY wanted and you made the most of it. (but you would have still done that anyway even with the new tuition fees I'm guessing) As you say, a few years ago a student spending money on taxi's and the like was unthinkable - but not now. Would it shock you to know that in my former street that every student house has several cars outside belonging to the students. Yes every student house, not just some of them.
You are thinking back to a time when many students were seriously poor whereas most of them now are not and should not receive the level of state funding that they do. Many students do now in fact behave like spoilt rich kids. Anecdotal? It's based on what I saw year-in and year-out and also how much the students changed over the years. Whereas you considered your education to be a great privilege which gave you great opportunities many now just see it as an automatic right (which they often abused).
On 1 Dec 2010 at 5:38pm jrsussex wrote:
I was not supporting either side of the discussion, merely pointing out that the idea that the assumption that by obtaining a degree you generally receive a higher salary is simply not true in reality. There are, as said, literally thousands of people who did not go to uni but have become self-made men (and women). And in doing so have paid enormous tax demands throughout their working lives.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 5:54pm Old Bill wrote:
Talk about hard of understanding Homesick, you seem incapable of grasping even the simplest of notions, even with your three tax payer funded grants that you seem happy to gloat about.
Your words 'I think that it's right to pay tax and I think that it's right that those who earn more, pay more - how difficult is this to understand'. It is very easy to understand in fact, and it may be news to you up in your ivory tower, but we all pay taxes, so not just you but WE have ALL paid for your education, along with all the other things that you seem to think your tax alone goes towards, like paying for other peoples kids to go to school. WE ALL pay for that.
You go on to say 'I don't want to pay yet again though', well isn't that nice, so you are expecting US TO PAY FOR YOU AGAIN, even though you are the one that went to uni, not us, and you are the one who quite happily brags about the wonderful salary you are now on as a result. (By the way, you still have not explained your earlier comment, that you are subsidising me)
Unfortunately in your case, whatever other qualifications you achieved at uni, it also gave you a rather unpleasant and over inflateded idea of your own importance...and no, I am not being rude, nor was I earlier, I am just telling it like it is. You might do well to take some notice, as being condescending and superior is not the best way to come over to people, no matter how clever you are, or however great your job is.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 7:08pm James wrote:
Arsehole
On 1 Dec 2010 at 7:18pm James wrote:
And that post above is not me. Another problem with the idiots on here. They are the stooges of a brainless God !!!
On 1 Dec 2010 at 7:20pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
There are lots of graduate jobs that aren't well paid - nurses and social workers are only on average salaries and jobs in things like forensic science are very badly paid.
I'm in favour of grants for students because if gives the best chance of improving social mobility - kids from poor homes can afford to stay on at school and go to uni rather than get jobs. If that has to be funded by rich peoplepaying more tax, that seems fair to me.