Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

Well the students have started rioting!

I wonder how long the coalition can last in view of this latest development?

[Odyssey]

It won't last.

[Ladymuck]

What won't last? The rioting or the coalition?

[Ridgley]

Not all students do useless courses H and yes I am woman even if though the name sounds masculine;-)

[Magpie]

Charging for tuition fees is logical and equitable, its also progressive as the consequence of charging is that the cost is transferred to future high earners. Unlike school attendence at university is not compulsory, in general a degree leads to a higher average income over a working life, therefore it makes sense to pay for something that gives you an advantage, especially as you don't pay back the loan until you start realising the benefit of obtaining a degree. The alternative (general funding from taxation) sees the lowest paid subsidising future high earners.

[Brendan]

But high earners pay more tax and therefore pay more towards the funding education.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And yet this has worked for decades with more people on low incomes deciding to get that education they have partially funded. You start waving a large debt in front of them, in a time when jobs are scarce anyway, they will not even risk it and more feasibly end up in a minimum wage job

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah I agree with Sean and in fact this is the case in America, which pretty much has a two tier University system. More affluent parents take out policies and investments to pay for their childs University education anyway.

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You start

> waving a large debt in front of them, in a time

> when jobs are scarce anyway, they will not even

> risk it and more feasibly end up in a minimum wage

> job

Ha! They should be so lucky! In the event that they are unable to obtain such relatively lucrative employment, they may well be forced to undertake menial jobs for a pittance of around ?1 an hour (in addition to that already vast sum of just over ?51 per week JSA of course). And, naturally, they will only have themselves to blame because they will so obviously not have tried sufficiently hard enough to look for work. And we all know that there are just STACKS of jobs out there - right? An abundance in fact!(6)

*bangs head on wall*

[Huguenot]

LadyM, you could talk yourself into a depression.

Apparently there's 29.16 million jobs out there. That qualifies as an abundance. Naturally, it is competitive to get one of them.

I should add that if you're earning minimum wage then you don't pay the loan back.

I just don't get all this victim talk. These people aren't stupid. Frankly if they can't work out that they'll only be paying the loan back if they do get a well paid job then they're too stupid to go to university.

[????]

...brilliant, Facebook looking to open a European HQ say..."mmm we have to pay tax to the UK governemnt for hiring people? Tell me about our options in Ireland?"

...graduates with poor (and useless) degrees in debt not even able to get jobs in call centres or McDonalds as these emplyers look to non-taxed non-degree holders..

Caroline Lucas et al (surely not you DC?) may seem to think you can run state of the art hospitals and efficient public transport on negative growth, a few windfarms and everyone being a socialworker but back in the real world we need a business friendly enterprise encouraging society so the horrible capitalists generae enough tax revenue to pay for these things

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LadyM, you could talk yourself into a depression.

I know that! I was being facetious - for the heck of it! Or is that not allowed in the Drawing Room?

(That last bit is a rhetorical question, esteemed Chair).

*sticks tongue out at H*

[Ladymuck]

But there was also a serious undertone to my comment. I was referring to IDS' latest proposals of getting the unemployed to undertake tasks for around ?1 a week (plus JSA). It doesn't sit comfortably with me at all. And, as I vociferously commented upon in another thread, if the Government genuinely wishes to help the unemployed back into work by making them feel socially useful and training them etc., then fine. However, if this is about demeaning or punishing so-called scroungers or malingerers, then I am not happy about it. Just my 2 cents' worth.

[david_carnell]

I'm not sure ????.

I think you have to ask "who benefits" and in the case of degrees it is not just the graduate. It is also businesses and the state. So perhaps funding should come from a combination of the three?

Does that not seem reasonable?

[????]

In a protected, walls up, self sufficient economy maybe. in a global one, madness for the reasons stated. Googless European HQ in Dublin employs 2000 young Irish people trains them, pays them well, skills them and pays taxes to Ireland on top of its employers' tax. Companies like them ever going to invest in the UK if they've got to pay a graduate tax on top of our already higher than Ireland corporation tax rates?

Even I had to edit some of the grammatical howlers therin

[david_carnell]

As this thread is about "fairness" I wonder if your approach is fair ????.

Why do businesses get to benefit from a well trained, highly educated graduate without having to contribute anything towards that? Firms often run apprenticeships for technical professions that require skills so why shouldn't business have to contribute say 30% towards the cost of educating their future employees?

Or are we attempting a double tax in that their corporation tax should pay for this stuff in the first place?

I've no desire for the UK to be gloablly uncompetitive but businesses will move to other countries pretty quickly when the supply of graduates dries up as it becomes too expensive to gain a degree.

[Ladymuck]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As this thread is about "fairness" I wonder if

> your approach is fair ????.

*dons Pedant's Hat*

Actually, it's about "unfairness".

But it's a...ahem...fair comment LOL.

[????]

So businesses contribute nothing to our country? er, ooh dear I give up. By and large they and the people they employ pay for the whole kaboodle that is the state and the states employees (yes including their tax) and, if the government's not financing it through further borrowing, the interest on money already borrowed by govts to pay for the state too. I'm reasonably happy that most areas of the state aren't run to make money but either the private sector (or far worse) government borrowing funds this and increasingly the Labour Party and Public Sector rank and file just don't seem to acknowledge this or want to. Companies, especially modern ones in modern industries, also pay for their employees development and continued training and welfare beyond just sucking them up as graduate proleterian 'Labour' into some modern equivalent of a 19th century Salford cotton mill. Marx and Engels have contributed enormously to the way we can think about societies and how they function but applying their views on capital and labour to 21st century modern economies is laughable.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Because it's Friday, and because quids said "laughable" and it put me in mind of the "laughable" speech from Big Lebowski can I post this, even if it's in the Drawing Room

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Xeqk8ZPAg9w/SMFfeXLboeI/AAAAAAAAApE/wvjqUQiskmA/s400/johan.jpg

[david_carnell]

Seriously.....sometimes I think you just want to misquote me and ignore my questions.

That whole paragraph was hyperbolic nonsense.

I never said businesses don't contribute to the country. That would be a ridiculous statement.

Nor did I say they contribute nothing towards their employees development.

Although, if you want to be arsey about it I could point out that the public sector also funds large amounts of training for its personnel who can then be poached by the private sector i.e. nursing.

[DJKillaQueen]

David actually makes a good point. And indeed there are several sectors that do invest in the fees of training their interns or employees. My post degree apprenticeship was entirely funded by the sector I work in. It's not an idea entirely lost on me.

[The Chair]

As it is Friday.....the Chair says "Si".

[????]

Clique!!!!!!!!

Oh bollox, OK DC banged to rights it's nearly beer time let me but you a pint of bitter (which is what I'll be drinking)later. Sean gets nowt.

[Ladymuck]

Pissing myself! (Sorry Chair)

[Ladymuck]

So, putting aside any mention of the D-word, are these cuts really designed to address our "culture of litigation" or, will they simply hit some of our most vulnerable at a time when they might probably need Legal Aid the most?

Having worked in this area for many years and seen at first hand how valuable LA is, I think this is a real step backwards. If the proposed cuts take place, access to justice will be denied not only to many who can least afford it, but also to those in the most vulnerable of positions - effectively possibly opening them up to exploitation in the areas of housing, employment, immigration, and benefits etc. The knock on effect could be wide-ranging as e.g. Citizens Advice Bureaux and Law Centres find their funding either savagely reduced or withdrawn.