Labour Govt - waste of time

barnaby-bear

whambamboo wrote:

She doesn't get children's tax credit because she's not a child any more. She doesn't have to pay tuition fees I assume because your income isn't high enough. She gets £4.5k/year + she can probably get some low-cost or free overdrafts from the banks. And then there's the Higher Education Grant of £1k/year (up to £2.7k/year from this year), which is not repayable, for families earning less than £21k.

And then there are bursaries, hardship funds, and other sources of funding to be had. E.g., Oxford gives you £4k in the first year, £3k the second year if your household income is below £17.5k. With 4 A's and studying vet science I'm guessing she's at a good university, and wherever it is they probably have some similar scheme: e.g., Cambridge has a £3k/year bursary if you earn less than about £17k.

So she's getting at least £5.5k/year, and quite possibly a lot more, I can't see why she needs any more money from you.

I don't understand why students moan about getting into debt: they are investing in their futures, and investing tends to cost money.

With the possible exception of mature students, I think people saying that they can no longer afford to go to university are talking rubbish, it's just they have to pay for a small part of the costs (although your daughter will only pay for her own living costs, not the cost of tuition).

Vet courses cost around 100k in true cost to run for each student, after which she'll have a very high income, so paying loan back for a fraction of cost of course seems fair.

barnaby-bear

barnaby-bear wrote:

Vet courses cost around 100k in true cost to run for each student, after which she'll have a very high income, so paying loan back for a fraction of cost of course seems fair.

Oh and vet/med students get top-up *grants* (not loans - bursaries) for having longer courses than other students. If mum wants to top her up - she could work full time?

whambamboo

barnaby-bear wrote:

Oh and vet/med students get top-up *grants* (not loans - bursaries) for having longer courses than other students. If mum wants to top her up - she could work full time?

I guess it depends on the age of the other child, but if it's older than 11 then there's no reason not to work full-time - when I was at secondary school I used to let myself in, while my mum worked till 6pm and then got an hour's bus ride to get home. But if she's no longer getting tax credits for both kids she can work full time, though I suspect part of the problem is the more you work the more you lose in benefits and grants as your income rises - but it's hardly something to complain about is it: "I get so many benefits it doesn't make sense for me to work".

undercoat11

Don't want to sound harsh, but why have a baby when they obviously can't afford one? I waited until I was in a relatively financially secure position and wouldn't have to rely on handouts to have my child.

It sounds horrible, I know, but I am fed up with people expecting to be given money from my taxes to fund their lifestyle. If you are poor, why have mobile phones and broadband internet connections? Also, I think they need to visit that uswitch website, because they are paying an awful lot for gas and electricity!

Mrs_pbradley936

Higher Education has never been "free" but previously it was funded by taxation. To have to pay for something that was previously government funded is surely another form of tax.

westernpromise

barnaby-bear wrote:

Vet courses cost around 100k in true cost to run for each student, after which she'll have a very high income, so paying loan back for a fraction of cost of course seems fair.

She will also pay a marginal tax rate of 51%, so if she does earn well, she will repay it that way as well. So she's paying for it twice, and if her children want to go to university, they'll be charged more based on her earnings, which means she'll be paying again.

University education used to be free, like all education. The only reason it is now being charged for is because it has been extended and as such it is now unaffordable.

The trend seems to be to charge us again for things we have already paid for through taxes. If you want a good education you have to pay twice, ditto policing, ditto healthcare, ditto transport, and the latest wheeze is to charge us council tax and charge us again for rubbish collection.

Every generation must learn for itself about Labour governments, sadly.

westernpromise

undercoat11 wrote:

It sounds horrible, I know, but I am fed up with people expecting to be given money from my taxes to fund their lifestyle.

It doesn't sound horrible at all, it's just that we are conditioned by the government and the BBC to think it does so that we will continue to pay the taxes that fund the government's payroll vote.

What amazes me is that people who live in the most absolutely Godawful crime-blighted sink estates continue to vote Labour even though the party has done absolutely nothing for them. And never will - poor people vote Labour, so obviously it's going to keep them as poor as possible. The whole mesh of benefits is set up towards that. Why don't the poor care they're poor? Is it Stockholm Syndrome or something?

barnaby-bear

pbradley936 wrote:

Higher Education has never been "free" but previously it was funded by taxation. To have to pay for something that was previously government funded is surely another form of tax.

Sounds efficient - cut out the middleman - why have countless civil servants taking money from taxpayers to pay for their higher education when you can do it directly... but we never had to fund 50% of kids going or the fact 80% of those going are wasting their time doing pointless stuff or they used to teach at school but dumbed down - if someone with three Cs wants to study television studies, fine - they can pay for their little holiday just like they can pay for their own iPod...

whambamboo

westernpromise wrote:

She will also pay a marginal tax rate of 51%, so if she does earn well, she will repay it that way as well. So she's paying for it twice, and if her children want to go to university, they'll be charged more based on her earnings, which means she'll be paying again.

Marginal tax is 41% not 51%, and a vet with her own practice will pay much less as she can structure it as a business and write off many costs and pay out non-NI dividends.

But it's not so much a case of paying twice for university - I didn't finish my course and I still pay plenty of tax. The tax is on income, not ability.

The issue is the Labour government's continuing higher and higher spend (up to 43% of GDP, above Germany soon), without improving results, and the immorality of working people paying for the workshy to do nothing for their entire lives. It's not a university issue as much as a general 'working people pay for lazy people to stay at home and do nothing' issue.

Mrs_pbradley936

The conception of poverty has changed. Poverty used to mean not having enough to eat and not being able to put shoes on children’s feet. The Labour party was successful at tackling that sort of poverty. The Welfare State intended to give support from “the cradle to the grave”. Although now poverty means something entirely different.