'Don't pay your kids tuition fees upfront' Discussion Area

arsenalbarnie

Lokolo wrote: »

No they won't! What do not understand?

Without tuition fees the taxpayer suffers £9k per student per year at university education.

With tuition fees and loans they taxpayer suffers the difference between the amount taken and the amount pays back, which is up to £9k, so likely the taxpayer only suffers around £5-6k!

The taxpayer suffers LESS with the loan because the student pays some or all of it!

So how would having free university education - whereby the taxpayer pays for EVERYTHING be better off to the tax payer!?

Ok have it your way you are the expert I just have an opinion sorry but it's different to yours. I am not the only one to feel disheartened with the whole sorry mess of the new tuition fee saga. I shall not darken this Thread doorstep again. I promise.

Lokolo

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

Ok have it your way you are the expert I just have an opinion sorry but it's different to yours. I am not the only one to feel disheartened with the whole sorry mess of the new tuition fee saga. I shall not darken this Thread doorstep again. I promise.

By all means you can disagree with tuition fees, but saying that taxpayer is worse off is just untrue.

LauraW10

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

What's the point about being scandalised about an existing situation over which someone is powerless?

Well thankfully not everyone agrees with you!

Britain's National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) has announced plans to stage a national demonstration on November 9th against fees' hike, cuts and privatisation.

NCAFC members, the students who held the big student demos last year, have said they will return to the streets, with a march on the City of London on November 9th.
The students would then join massive strikes and demos later on November 30th across the UK.

http://presstv.com/detail/204794.html

and this is what happens even when people try to stand up for themselves, god knows what happens when they just rollover....

The 'Occupy London Stock Exchange' protests receive a media blackout in Britain as peaceful protesters were kettled outside St. Paul Cathedral in London.

On the global day of action for the occupy movement, the British media has planned not to cover the most important protests of this age, and even ignored the domestic demonstrators who are shouting against the financial crises imposed by the coalition government.

http://presstv.com/detail/204777.html

Not on the front page of one newspaper this morning!


Toffs/ rich people shouldn't be allowed to get young people into debt - grow a spine and ask yourself this - how did you get brainwashed into thinking this was acceptable?!

Oldernotwiser

LauraW10 wrote: »

Well thankfully not everyone agrees with you!

http://presstv.com/detail/204794.html

and this is what happens even when people try to stand up for themselves, god knows what happens when they just rollover....

http://presstv.com/detail/204777.html

Not on the front page of one newspaper this morning!


Toffs/ rich people shouldn't be allowed to get young people into debt - grow a spine and ask yourself this - how did you get brainwashed into thinking this was acceptable?!

Firstly, by all means protest or get involved in politics, that's not at all the same thing as coming on a forum and being scandalised, which does no good at all.

Secondly, considering that the vast number of students come from middle class families ( many of who will be in a position to alter their tax affairs to pay less) I don't see that having working class people pay more tax to fund middle class students' education (including that of the toffs/rich) is all that desirable.

My position is clear and consistent; we should cut the number of university places so that we could fund them better.

mumps

Lokolo wrote: »

Taxpayers in general will.

How do you think university education was paid for before loans and tuition fees? It came out of the government spending.

Before tuition fees it would cost the government ~£9k a year which went to the universities.

Tuition fees limited, cost the government ~£6k, student ~£3K. However because loans are written off the overall effect would be around ~£7k to ~£2k.

Now tuition fees cost the government £0k, but student pays ~£9k. However because loans are written off the overall effect would be the same as before. However, those that earn more will pay back more.

Do you know what the cost of running the system is? I think the whole bureaucracy of the system must cost an awful lot of money.

PaulW1965

Lokolo wrote: »

No they won't! What do not understand?

Without tuition fees the taxpayer suffers £9k per student per year at university education.

Wth all due respect I think it's you who doesn't understand.

The money that the government is borrowing to fund HE in 2012 will not form part of the government's current spending plans - it will become a future liability. Whilst the government borrows the money now (through the gilt market) because the government believes it is getting the money back in the future, it doesn't get charged to the tax payer in 2012. Instead, the student loans become an asset to the government and will only be charged to the tax payer as and when some future government believes they will not get the money back.

The 2012 tax payer doesn't pay for the 2012 HE costs, some future generation does, when the future government realises it's not getting the money back.

Lokolo wrote: »

With tuition fees and loans they taxpayer suffers the difference between the amount taken and the amount pays back, which is up to £9k, so likely the taxpayer only suffers around £5-6k!

The taxpayer suffers LESS with the loan because the student pays some or all of it!

So how would having free university education - whereby the taxpayer pays for EVERYTHING be better off to the tax payer!?

You seem to think a future government will be happy just to recoup 55% to 66%. There is no guarantee that will happen.

kayr_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

My position is clear and consistent; we should cut the number of university places so that we could fund them better.

Couldn't agree more.

PaulW1965

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Secondly, considering that the vast number of students come from middle class families ( many of who will be in a position to alter their tax affairs to pay less) I don't see that having working class people pay more tax to fund middle class students' education (including that of the toffs/rich) is all that desirable.

So I take it you're only on this thread for a nice slice of schadenfruede....... ?

Lokolo

PaulW1965 wrote: »

You seem to think a future government will be happy just to recoup 55% to 66%. There is no guarantee that will happen.

Of course theres not, but theres more chance of getting some back rather than none isn't there?

Lokolo

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Wth all due respect I think it's you who doesn't understand.

The money that the government is borrowing to fund HE in 2012 will not form part of the government's current spending plans - it will become a future liability. Whilst the government borrows the money now (through the gilt market) because the government believes it is getting the money back in the future, it doesn't get charged to the tax payer in 2012. Instead, the student loans become an asset to the government and will only be charged to the tax payer as and when some future government believes they will not get the money back.

The 2012 tax payer doesn't pay for the 2012 HE costs, some future generation does, when the future government realises it's not getting the money back.

I am trying to keep things simple for those that haven't studied economics, a lot of those who contribute to this thread won't even know what a Gilt is.

It doesn't matter whether the money is paid now, or later, or whether it is written off, you need to look at it on simple terms for a debate on this thread.

£9k per student when there are 100,000 students is affordable. £9k per student when there are 700,000 students is not. Hence, the introduction of tuition fees.

I very much doubt the aim of tuition fees is to cut university education budget entirely, but to limit the cost with the mass increase of numbers.