Tuition fee protest

tomterm8

Pennywise wrote: »

There may not be an annual deficit, but we'll still be trillions in debt. The four year plan is to stop the total borrowings getting bigger. After we've balanced the annual budget in 4 years time, we have to start working to reduce the borrowings, i.e. to run a surplus! Shame that GB didn't pay off any of the countries trillions on debt in the good years isn't it?

The UK has had a public debt for the last 300 years, without bad effect.

In the real world, if the government is in surplus, because the GDP increases by an average of 2.5% a year, the ability to service debt increases at a very fast rate. It works out that at the current market cost for financing government borrowing if the deficit is below 5%, debt to gdp is stable.

To put it in perspective, if we had a surplus for 4 years, debt to GDP would be lower than at any point in my life.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

I made another edit , and yes I notice that PWC seem to have a good non graduate entry programme.

KPMG etc do also, to be fair a lot off accountancy is work based simply because a lot of it is drilled in through repetition.

A lot of people start sort of AAT qualified and work up, it is generally easier that way as you are building work experience.

If you come out of uni CIMA qualified you have to do virtually the same anyway to build up your work experience (so you would be employed at a lower level than your qualification for around 3 years)

N1AK

StevieJ wrote: »

Tell that to the women who thought they were retiring at 60.

I happily would. Anyone who is close to retiring now almost certainly didn't pay enough tax to cover the cost of services (including pension) that they have received.

A long string of governments have made commitments based on loading the next generation(s) with debt. Those women may have been ignorant of this, but ignorance is rarely a good defence. If they'd been protesting for higher taxation in order to build a public fund for their pensions back in the 60-70s then I'd have more sympathy. Instead they happily voted for whoever told them what they wanted to hear.

ILW

FTBFun wrote: »

So, for example, you'd ignore housewives protesting that the NHS isn't spending enough on post-natal care then?

I agree with Cleaver, an odd stance to take.

I fail to see what right those who have never contributed have to protest over how other peoples money is spent.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

I fail to see what right those who have never contributed have to protest over how other peoples money is spent.

Just as an example I haven't ever been a woman, but if women's rights were being taken away to a point where I felt strongly enough to protest about it I wouldn't expect someone to tell me I didn't have any right to do it because I'm a man.

You're essentially saying that people who will be students, are students or have been students have no 'right' to demonstrate about an issue that directly effects students. That's a fairly ludicrous statement as far as I'm concerned.

andymc29

As far as I'm concerned. If you go out smashing windows and vandalising public property as part of your protest, then you're too immature for university anyway.

The biggest cause of the problem is the sheer number of people wanting to go to university, we simply can't support the numbers. If all these people are really good enough for university then why can't they offer a good alternative plan to raising fees that ministers will agree with?

chucknorris

StevieJ wrote: »

My point was that you need a degree as an entry qualification, so the point made by Pennywise is fairly irrelevant.

I would say a very high percentage of recently chartered surveyors these days are graduates, I personally do not know anyone who is chartered and did not enter the profession as a graduate. There will be a few older ones and possibly even the odd younger one but the main pathway is certainly via a degree.

FTBFun

ILW wrote: »

I fail to see what right those who have never contributed have to protest over how other peoples money is spent.

Perhaps we should take away their right to vote also? And say that you can only vote if you pay a certain amount of tax each year.

Blimey its the 18th century again.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Just as an example I haven't ever been a woman, but if women's rights were being taken away to a point where I felt strongly enough to protest about it I wouldn't expect someone to tell me I didn't have any right to do it because I'm a man.

You're essentially saying that people who will be students, are students or have been students have no 'right' to demonstrate about an issue that directly effects students. That's a fairly ludicrous statement as far as I'm concerned.

Totally different.

These students are not protesting about rights.

They are saying that they want to do courses that cost up to £9000 per year, but think others that will not benefit should be forced into subsidising them. This is all about cash and little else.

StevieJ

N1AK wrote: »

I happily would. Anyone who is close to retiring now almost certainly didn't pay enough tax to cover the cost of services (including pension) that they have received.

A long string of governments have made commitments based on loading the next generation(s) with debt. Those women may have been ignorant of this, but ignorance is rarely a good defence. If they'd been protesting for higher taxation in order to build a public fund for their pensions back in the 60-70s then I'd have more sympathy. Instead they happily voted for whoever told them what they wanted to hear.

My comment was in reply to this statement from you.

while at the same time setting themselves up for a comfy retirement by improving pensions