On 7 May 2011 at 2:28pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Does increasing the tuition fees for those who attend University mean that only those who have a genuine desire to learn and work will now want to go?
On 7 May 2011 at 3:34pm not from around here wrote:
One would hope so, as that has been needed for a long time.
On 7 May 2011 at 3:52pm Vesbod wrote:
It also means that the poorer people will not now receive education at degree level !!!!
On 7 May 2011 at 4:08pm Paul Newman wrote:
There was an interesting article in the Times recently ( by Anatole Kaletsky) mentioning that in Hungary they are considering giving additional votes for mothers to register for their children. They are doing this because the demographic facts are such that old, people are eating the future.
Their absurd pensions and endless retirement, in the Public sector, are destroying the welfare state (especially the middle class one which tuition fees is an argument about )
Meanwhile the young and children above all are signed up for more and more debt by the selfish oldsters many of whom have profited hugely from Property inflation , free education, free dental treatment et al.
If mothers could vote for their children then I bet there would be a lot more political will to take on the vested union interests and give the young a fair deal.
On 7 May 2011 at 4:42pm Clifford wrote:
Teachers' Pet - it also means that only those whose parents can afford to 'help' with their fees will go. Back to the good old pre-war days, eh?
On 7 May 2011 at 5:12pm Deelite wrote:
It will certainly reduce social mobility.
On 7 May 2011 at 5:36pm Grunge wrote:
Paul, some of your latest doesn't quite make sense. Have you been finishing off the bottle of Wincarnis? If I understand it right, having worked since the age of 17, still working now at over 70, paid all my taxes and contributions and hardly ever used the NHS, I should now hang my head in shame and go off somewhere quiet to pop my clogs. I don't think so! Were you being ironical by any chance?
On 7 May 2011 at 8:11pm Paul Newman wrote:
Grunge I am referring to the final salary related Public Sector occupational schemes, not to the ordinary state pension which is miserly .
A teacher, for example, on £30,000, retires with a pot worth about £750,000 . You couldn`t by it for any price. We pay, or rather the young do.
Meanwhile life expectancy has changed out of all proportion and rapidly. Even the state pension is not affordable with people retiring expecting the rest of us to pay for thirty years of fit healthy living . It was supposed to be for about five years. National Insurance does not cover that and in any case was never a real contribution its just tax.
Frankly I am not sure why a fit, intelligent virile and no doubt physically superb , chap of 70 shouldn`t work anyway ?
On 8 May 2011 at 9:16am Grunge wrote:
Crumbs, Paul! The profile you have given me has set me a real challenge. Am off to work on my general superbness but cannot guarantee results.
On 8 May 2011 at 9:19am Grunge wrote:
Webbo - is there any reason why for the last few days I have had to post everything twice as the first does not register?
On 8 May 2011 at 10:50am Ronnies rabble wrote:
Same problem with my postings too Grunge. Sometimes it won't accept them even after 2 or 3 tries.
I have used both IE9 and Opera browsers but still no joy!
On 8 May 2011 at 1:58pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
If you want the extra education to achieve a job with a bigger salary then what's wrong with investing in your own future. You wouldn't expect the education system to pay for your driving licence if you want to be a taxi or lorry driver. Don't expect help to become a commercial pilot. The fact that you don't have to pay any money back until you're earning over £21k means that no-one is excluded from education at this level.
On 8 May 2011 at 3:57pm jrsussex wrote:
'ere be monsters - Well said, you have summed up the truth of the matter rather well.
On 8 May 2011 at 4:36pm Clifford wrote:
I imagine you also think that there should be an admission charges for art galleries and museums as well, 'ere be monsters? And, by your logic, I'm not sure why secondary education should be free for pupils. I mean it is 'extra' to primary education.
On 8 May 2011 at 5:05pm not from around here wrote:
Well done 'ere be monsters. The maths is basic but I guess that people who really cannot grasp the bit about not paying ANYTHING back until you reach a salary of £21k are just too thick for university anyway..
On 8 May 2011 at 5:12pm Madame Bovary wrote:
EBM and NFAH, I agree with both of you. I just don't like the idea of incurring debts. How does the American model work? I get the idea that it is more easy for them to work their way through college.
Also, I don't feel that university is right for everyone, and not everyone has the basic English skills to cope with it. A university degree should MEAN something.
On 8 May 2011 at 6:22pm bastian wrote:
as a parent I have been left in no doubt that the debt is the students resposibility alone,parents cannot help without incuring the same fine you get with a mortgage...that's what we were told at our kids 6th form college.It isn't the debt, it's the huge amount of debt.For instance an HGV licence is generally paid for by the company you will drive for,after all,do bus drivers have to pay for their tests or do the company?if it does I doubt it costs them 27 thousand pound....this quantity of debt is going to slow down the chances of any young person.They also told us that the average graduate job was paid at 25thousand,it is this wage that gets hit the hardest.
On 8 May 2011 at 7:42pm jrsussex wrote:
The very notion that everbody has a right to a university place is of course nonsense. If you are academically bright enough then yes go to university but those that are not, along with those who have little intention of working hard for a degree, should be refused. I believe that if that were to happen and the excessive waste of taxpayers money stopped it would bring about more funding to be spent on those that take the opportunity seriously and possibly lessen the need for increased fees.
On 8 May 2011 at 7:49pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Clifford. I've read my post again and I'm pretty confident that I didn't make any of those ludicrous statements you attribute to me. It would appear you have accused me of thinking these things because you have no proper argument against what I actually posted, Desperate.
On 8 May 2011 at 7:57pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Bastian. HGV training does not cost £27k but the rewards are not so great. Yes companies will pay for that training, but your contract will tie you into that job otherwise you have to pay back the costs if you leave early in your contract. A commercial pilots licence is a lot more than ¬£27k.
The point is you are going to be able to pay the loan back with the hgigher salaries achieved with a good degree.
On 8 May 2011 at 9:40pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
@ Paul Newman.
Well it's news to my husband that he will have such a HUGE pension pot. As a teacher earning around 21 k a year, (he works part time, so is on below average salary) he will eventually at retirement age, according to his forecasts, net an annual pension of around 7 k a year. This is also the situation for many many thousands of people who work part time in the public sector (mainly women). No massive pay outs for them, eh.
I think you are, frankly, lying with your figures. What's your source ?
On 8 May 2011 at 10:30pm Cliff hanger wrote:
Be interesting to see the guy's reply, but frankly his statements are usually made up on the fly and manufactured from very thin air.
On 9 May 2011 at 8:14am 'ere be monsters wrote:
When trying to make a point it isn't unusual for some to use either end of the scale to reinforce their argument.
On 9 May 2011 at 5:08pm bastian wrote:
ebm...how about train drivers then...they earn more than 25k and they will have a job at the end of it.
On 9 May 2011 at 6:14pm Super rich wrote:
I have so much money I don't need a pension - its all in the buidling society
On 9 May 2011 at 7:27pm bastian wrote:
also,ever since the tuition fees were tripled it has become an arguement about money.Education is more than that,it's about personal fulfilment and anyone who says"I don't see why I should pay for your kid to fulfill their talents",is not pro society,infact they have been quietly guided into the capitalist fold of dog eat dog,rather than into a society that supports each others youth.It does seem tough that this years entrance to uni will pay three times less than next years,not twice,three times.If you want education privatised why stop there.........(super rich I know your're not rolling in it or you wouldn't be wasting your time on this cheap kick,you'd be out there on the town spending yoor windfall...it's a tough old world and it's about to get tougher)
On 10 May 2011 at 9:11am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Bastian, what about the train drivers? Not sure I understand what you mean. Your bit about "I don't see why I should pay for your kid to fulfill their talents" is somewhat confusing.
Don't worry about super rich, he can't be that rich if he's got it all in a building society!!
On 10 May 2011 at 10:24am Twinky wrote:
Unpopular though his views may seem, Paul N is about right with his numbers. If at the age of 65 a single male buys an annnuity that pays £7000 till you die, that will costs about ¬£105,000. But that payment becomes less effective as inflation increases prices. If you buy an annuity that pays an amount that today pays ¬£7,000 but which then goes up with inflation, so maintaining your purchasing power (this is what you get from the state), that will cost roughly double (say ¬£200,000 for a ¬£7,000 equivalent payment).
So brixtonbelle, this IS the value of your husbands pension.
Grunge - If you want to have a pension that pays ¬£30k annually, on an inflation linked basis, you could easily need a starting pension pot of >¬£750K.
If you don't believe me, type "annuity prices" into Google. This is why the private sector get so how under the collar; the amount of money being put into public sector pensions is unbelievable. We haven't a hope of accumulating this size of pension pot.
On 10 May 2011 at 10:47am Brixtonbelle wrote:
Yes but you are misinterpreting what Paul wrote - he said a teacher on a salary of 30 k would get an annuinty of 750k, not that that teacher was to receive a pension of 30k. Thats a big difference. NO one retires on the same as their final salary, not even in the oh so glorious public sector. The reality is that if public sector/ teachers pensions are cut (and again I reiterate, the vast majority of people receiving public sector pensions are NOT getting the inflated sums the Tories are suggesting, most are in the 3-10k pa level because of the large amount of part time/ women workers in public sector), teachers will leave the profession in DROVES. It will have a serious impact on state education. If people really truly want a decent education system for their kids they need top quality teachers and you dont get that by paying peanuts or by taking away the pension pot which has long been an acknowledged 'perk' to being a teacher because of historically low wage levels. Take away the pensions and you will have to pay a lot more for teachers salaries to compensate. A few years ago there was much talk of getting the best candidates from the private sector to go into teaching, but also a realisation that is you want the best you also have to pay more. If this is what the Condem government want, fine, but they will end up with a much higher wage bill as a result. And a few strikes thrown in along the way...
On 10 May 2011 at 10:50am Brixtonbelle wrote:
and if you dont believe my figures here's some examples from the teachers pensions agency website
Check it out here »
On 10 May 2011 at 11:27am Twinky wrote:
@BB : My point is not to denigrate teachers, who are vital. Nor is it to say that they should be paid less.
Its to show that the benefits of a final salary based, inflation linked pension are a benefit for public sector workers way larger than people realise, EVEN THOUGH those pensions do not seem very large.
Lets run with the example shown on your website, the teachers pensions.
Example 1 : after 24.83 years service, retiring at 60, average salary of £26300, I end up with a pension of ¬£8163 plus a lump sum of ¬£24,400 (assume I joined scheme before 2007). That ¬£8163 pension is inflation linked.
Now lets assume I am self employed and had to buy a pension with the same terms:
If I had to buy a pension at age 60, which paid me ¬£8163 inflation linked, the annuity rate for a regular pension (not inflation linked) is about 6%. The rate for inflation linked pensions at age 60 will be about 3.5-4%.
So to get a pension paying me ¬£8163 annually, inflation linked, I'd be needing over ¬£200K. So toi get to ¬£200k over 24.8 years, I am putting aside ¬£8300 out of my salary of ¬£26300 - I am having to contribute a third of my salary to get an equal pension.
Plus the ¬£24K lump sum.
Plus there's a dependents pension, but lets leave that; assume I have no dependents.
On 10 May 2011 at 11:44am Teachers Pet wrote:
This thread was started to encourage a debate on tuition fees but seems to have been steered into a teachers pensions gripe.
This in itself is an important and emotive issue (Brixtonbelle Postings), so I feel a thread devoted to Teachers Pensions could prove an interesting subject and lay many myths to rest, so here goes............
On 10 May 2011 at 2:14pm bastian wrote:
Sorry, I seem to have missed alot while I was at work.....ebm,I mean it is good for society that every one should be able to access a degree if they want for personal growth..you know,their personal interest taken further in order to become fullfilled,this is how it used to be and for a small corridor of time anyone could do just that.Class can hold people back,but in the day of supported education at least someone who may not have normally taken the step to higher education could without risk of financial ruin...all this increase in fees has done is exclude anyone who dare not take the risk of debt...I'm not happy about my kid leaving university with that amount hanging over her..why?,because we brought her up to believe in managing her finances...and this increase means that many people who would like to study a very unusual subject like..classics will be left feeling under pressure to conform to what the money markets want instead..particularly if buisnesses start offering to pay loans back...only the rich will be able to afford to study some subjects..say goodbye to the arts now.(what was that about train drivers?...oh yeah,they are paid ok and they have a job at the end...no guarenteed job after a degree...that's what the tories want..competion)
On 10 May 2011 at 2:33pm bastian wrote:
Twinky,do you really think that the colossal sum you were quoted is paid by you out of your tax?or do you think that public sector pensions are floated on the stock exchange like everyone elses?Public sector workers pay between 5.5%(12k-15k)and6.5%(19k-32K)it goes up from there...it is never as black and white as you think,mr newman uses sophistry to confuse people with mish mash facts..it leaves a mess,politicians use it all the time.