Tuition fee vote passed
Comments
-
Other things to do........... like protesting without even knowing who's leading and representing them !johnfinch wrote:I would bet that most of the students at UCL don't even know she's been on TV. And being at a traditional university, they probably have other things to do with their time other than arranging votes of no confidence.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
johnfinch wrote:philthy3 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?
I have never read such twaddle. We obtain mortgages within our means and because we lose our jobs and pensions as a result of a Labour government policy of selling the gold reserves and not getting a grip of the banks earlier, it's our fault and we're living beyond our means? I sense the smell of Trotskyism. What's mine is your's comrade and what's your's you keep. You get my hard earned income and I get from you exactly what?
Troskyism? Communists believe that the workers should own the fruits of their own labour, what's Trotsky got to do with this?philthy3 wrote:How about universitis get paid on results. You pass your worthwhile subject they get paid. You fail and they haven't highlighted the fact that you aren't runing up for lectures, never submit work on time, stink and always falling asleep in class, they don't get paid. There should be a cut off for them to turn around and tell you you aren't pulling your weight so off you go to MacDonalds. And you pick up the bill for what it has cost so far.
To pass your degree you need to get 40%. Even the laziest of students should be able to manage that, but I agree with you in principle.
Trotskyism is a reference to the fact that it was designed as a means to overthrow established capitalism in developed western countries. The workers revolutionists although there aren't many students doing any work that I come across.
A pass rate of 40% what a joke. I left school without sitting any exams and went directly into the Army. The lack of educational qualifications never stopped me becoming an NCO. From there I've moved to my present job passing two written examinations at 77% and practical examinations along the way and I'm no academic. Sounds to me like there needs to be some serious revamping of further education. It sounds far too easy.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
philthy3 wrote:Trotskyism is a reference to the fact that it was designed as a means to overthrow established capitalism in developed western countries. The workers revolutionists although there aren't many students doing any work that I come across.
A pass rate of 40% what a joke. I left school without sitting any exams and went directly into the Army. The lack of educational qualifications never stopped me becoming an NCO. From there I've moved to my present job passing two written examinations at 77% and practical examinations along the way and I'm no academic. Sounds to me like there needs to be some serious revamping of further education. It sounds far too easy.
The downside to the 40% pass rate is that the degree isn't worth the paper it's written on when entering the workplace. That's why I think that we need to go for a similar system to the one used in Open University, where you can work towards a certificate, then a diploma, then a full degree. That way, if you discover that you really aren't suited to academic studies you can finish your studies early but still end up with a qualification.0 -
johnfinch wrote:andyrm wrote:I worked all the way through uni to pay my own way
Where did you go to university?
Leicester University, studying Design Engineering. Worked 15 hours a week (the maximum allowed by the uni) at Halfords (yes in the pre-Bikehut days!!!) term time and then full time at an electronics company in their factory every summer. On top of that I made a bit of extra cash DJing at the union. Net result was that I graduated with no debt, a good degree and a well-honed work ethic and an appreciation that everything I achieved was my own hard work.0 -
andyrm wrote:johnfinch wrote:andyrm wrote:I worked all the way through uni to pay my own way
Where did you go to university?
Leicester University, studying Design Engineering. Worked 15 hours a week (the maximum allowed by the uni) at Halfords (yes in the pre-Bikehut days!!!) term time and then full time at an electronics company in their factory every summer. On top of that I made a bit of extra cash DJing at the union. Net result was that I graduated with no debt, a good degree and a well-honed work ethic and an appreciation that everything I achieved was my own hard work.
Aah the Percy Gee I presume. Many are the times I got called to there.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Admirable - but you weren't paying 9k fees - unless you were an overseas student
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:Admirable - but you weren't paying 9k fees - unless you were an overseas student
True, but the overseas students see a value in paying for a UK degree. So why is it good enough for them to pay and not a British student? Or is it that they don't have the same overinflated sense of entitlement and see the value of what they are undertaking?0 -
Just as a point of reference my fee's for this year are:
£3,290 tuition
£4,243 accommodation (Halls so all bills included) (Cheapest Halls on offer too)
Then food.
By my calculations i'd have to work just over 24 hours per week(52 weeks) at £6 per hour just to cover tuition and accommodation. I'd be pretty hungry though.0 -
andyrm wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:Admirable - but you weren't paying 9k fees - unless you were an overseas student
True, but the overseas students see a value in paying for a UK degree. So why is it good enough for them to pay and not a British student? Or is it that they don't have the same overinflated sense of entitlement and see the value of what they are undertaking?
No they're just very rich people in their own country. They can afford to pay the fee's. For example the eastern european girl across the way from me is the daughter of a diplomat and her degree here along with her fathers connections will pretty much guarantee her an extremely well paid job in her country.0 -
Jez mon wrote:softlad wrote:University is over-rated - always has been. Some of the most useless people I have ever worked with had very good degrees.....some of those degrees were even in a relevant subject...
Yep, whenever I fly I always feel that I'd be just as safe, if rather than using qualified engineers to do stress/fatigue/CFD etc the design had been put together by a load of people off the street, based on what felt right to them. Same as when I get ill, why get a doctor to diagnose my symptoms, I'll just read up on wikipedia...
University doesn't totally sort wheat from chaf, but calling it over rated because you know a small amount of people that went yet don't shine brilliantly is just silly.
Come on fella, wise up a bit. It is perfectly possible (maybe not these days though, to be fair) to acquire all the knowledge you need for almost any job without attending university at all. My old dad was a qualifed engineer and ended up as one of the most sought after experts in his field - but he left school at 15.
I said university was 'over-rated' - I didn't say it was fck-all use......0 -
EKIMIKE wrote:Just as a point of reference my fee's for this year are:
£3,290 tuition
£4,243 accommodation (Halls so all bills included) (Cheapest Halls on offer too)
Then food.
By my calculations i'd have to work just over 24 hours per week(52 weeks) at £6 per hour just to cover tuition and accommodation. I'd be pretty hungry though.
How many weeks holiday do you get? I worked full time (ie 40-45 hours a week) in my holidays to take advantage of the extra time available to earn.
On the basis of a 15 week holiday spread (based on a generous 3 15 week semesters, more likely these would be 12 weeks each but it allows for studying before exams etc), a £6/hour job in McDonalds or a factory or a call centre (and there IS plenty of this type of work out there, register with 10+ agencies saying you will take any work going and you'll be surprised what you can get), would earn you £3600.00, almost 50% of the numbers you've talked about there. Factor in a term time job as I did and you're absolutely fine. Granted you won't have time to cane it every single night but there is hard proof it IS possible to support yourself.0 -
andyrm wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:Admirable - but you weren't paying 9k fees - unless you were an overseas student
True, but the overseas students see a value in paying for a UK degree. So why is it good enough for them to pay and not a British student? Or is it that they don't have the same overinflated sense of entitlement and see the value of what they are undertaking?
I agree with you that students (in a lot of cases) should work harder, however I think that many do - both academically and doing part-time jobs. My girlfriend worked so hard to get her first and did part-time work - at one point having 3 jobs. Unfortunately her family couldn't help her with fees so she had to take a loan out and now has plenty of debt despite a lot of effort on her part. She isn't the hard drinking partying type or a shopper so she didn't waste her money - it was spent on just living costs. Oh, she also worked during a-levels and saved up some money as well, but with 5 subjects it's very demanding and you can't really earn that much.
All that was for top fees at £3K a year.
What I do disagree with you about is the principal of why the tax payer should pay less. People had free university education for a very long time including most of the adult population over 30 - yes, a contribution was introduced to meet the requirement for students to recognise the fact that they would be gaining personally. What is important to note though is that they will on average pay more tax and provide skills to the economy to help the UK grow in the future - contributing to the public purse.
If you're going to continue the logic of "why should I pay for anyone else" why should a poor person pay the same council tax as a richer person? Why should the poor subsidise a rich person's bin collection? Why should the poor subsidise richer old people with winter fuel payments or bus cards? F*ck it - why should anywell off kid be able to go to a comprehensive at the tax payers expense? Why should rich people not have to employ a man guard to defend them in the street? - they are being subsidised by my tax spent on the police! Scroungers! Why should train services be subsidised because I don't use them? Fat people on the NHS?! Bloody lazy feckers! Why should I have to pay for any of this?!
Because I realise I pay tax to benefit wider society with education, police, defence, public services, health care which are used by people with an unimaginable range of circumstances, needs and wants that include you me and everyone else.
What should be address is the alternative to going to university and placing the cost between the student, the public purse and business - all of which benefit in the short, medium and long-term. Give people a credible alternative they can believe in which will help them get a job and be funded in a sustainable way and you'll solve the problem.
What won't solve the problem is putting a huge debt on a student simply for being born in slightly the wrong year when generations before them went to uni for free - How about we tax them more for having every condition under the sun in their favour - cheap house prices, free higher education, a booming job market, lower costs of living, better pension provision form public and private employers.
Don't penalise the youth for the mistakes of the pastWhat wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0 -
softlad wrote:Jez mon wrote:softlad wrote:University is over-rated - always has been. Some of the most useless people I have ever worked with had very good degrees.....some of those degrees were even in a relevant subject...
Yep, whenever I fly I always feel that I'd be just as safe, if rather than using qualified engineers to do stress/fatigue/CFD etc the design had been put together by a load of people off the street, based on what felt right to them. Same as when I get ill, why get a doctor to diagnose my symptoms, I'll just read up on wikipedia...
University doesn't totally sort wheat from chaf, but calling it over rated because you know a small amount of people that went yet don't shine brilliantly is just silly.
Come on fella, wise up a bit. It is perfectly possible (maybe not these days though, to be fair) to acquire all the knowledge you need for almost any job without attending university at all. My old dad was a qualifed engineer and ended up as one of the most sought after experts in his field - but he left school at 15.
I said university was 'over-rated' - I didn't say it was fck-all use......
I was being a bit facetious. But it does grind my gears when people make a blanket claim that uni is over rated, perhaps it is by some, well anyone who places any value on a degree in football studies is over rating it!!
I would say it is incredibly difficult to get the knowledge you need for a lot of jobs in the science field, especially if you want your employees to have a wide knowledge base, which I would argue is a good thing, as experts with narrow knowledge bases tend to be of limited use, furthermore, getting trained up for a specific job and only for that job is fine if you have a job for life, but this often isn't the case.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Something I would love to see more of is a shorter degree (2 years), with a final year of work based study where the student works on final projects in a practical work based environment where they are paid an apprentice type wage.
One of the biggest issues I have found with fresh graduates is that they know all the theory but none of the practical issues, tricks or nuances of an industry or work environment and certainly haven't mastered the art of working fast to maximise profits. A new structure like this would result in more capable and more employable graduates, while also reducing the length of time at university. I'm pretty sure all the academic work of most 3 year degrees could be fitted into a 2 year course looking back on my own experience, and I did a relatively lecture-heavy course.0 -
andyrm wrote:johnfinch wrote:andyrm wrote:I worked all the way through uni to pay my own way
Where did you go to university?
Leicester University, studying Design Engineering. Worked 15 hours a week (the maximum allowed by the uni) at Halfords (yes in the pre-Bikehut days!!!) term time and then full time at an electronics company in their factory every summer. On top of that I made a bit of extra cash DJing at the union. Net result was that I graduated with no debt, a good degree and a well-honed work ethic and an appreciation that everything I achieved was my own hard work.
SNAP! I'm back at uni studying for Design Engineering at the moment, but with the Open University, so I have no vested interest in the current tuition fees debate. When I originally went to university back in 1999, I worked for a year before going and then during all the holidays, so I too managed to leave without debt - the day that I left I checked my bank balance and it was £15.42 in the black.
However, let's face it, we both did subsidised studies, so just saying that you paid your way (or that I paid mine) isn't really accurate.0 -
Let's look at the way University is funded elsewhere in Europe for a comparison.
Austria:
The country’s university system has been free until 2001, since then studies are subject to fees. (€366 per term for Austrian citizens, about €700 per term for non-Austrians). In 2008 however, the government has decided to again eliminate the fees for students who complete their studies in the minimum time and are Austrian citizens.
Belgium:
The registration fee for any university or college is fixed by the government, and indexed yearly. Depending on whether the student is eligible and applies for financial aid, there are 3 prices:
Bursary-student
A student who is eligible and has applied for financial aid. (tuition fee is between €80 and €100).
Almost-bursary student
A student who is not eligible for financial aid, but has a family income below €1.286,09 per month. (tuition fee between €333,60 and €378,60[7]).
Non-bursary student
Anyone not eligible for financial aid with an income above €1.286,09 per month. (tuition fee between €500,40 and €567,80[8]).
The financial aid awarded by the community governments depends on the income of the student's family, and other familial circumstances, but is never more than approximately €3300 per year. The aid is not at all based on the student's results in high-school. Nevertheless, students who fail too many classes can lose their financial aid.
Czech Republic:
Study at public universities is unlimited and free, but after the age of 26, the attendant will not receive the student status from social services and state would not pay his health insurance if they continue studying. For private Universities a fee falls between 2 000 - 3 000 euro and for BSBA & MBA (not accredited by Ministry of Education) study programs between 3 000 - 10 000 euro.
Denmark:
Government-funded education is usually free of charge and open to all. Denmark has a tradition of private schools and about 13% of all children at basic school level attend private schools (with the highest UN based Education index in the world)
France:
Since higher education is funded by the state, the fees are very low; the tuition varies from 150€ to 700€ depending on the university and the different levels of education. (licence, master, doctorate). One can therefore get a Master's degree (in 5 years) for about 750-3,500€. Additionally, students from low-income families can apply for scholarships, paying nominal sums for tuition or textbooks, and can receive a monthly stipend of up to 450€/month.
The tuition in public engineering schools is comparable to universities, albeit a little higher (around 700€). However it can reach 7000€ a year for private engineering schools, and some business schools, which are all private or partially private, charge up to 8900€ a year.
Health insurance for students is free until the age of 21, so only the living costs and books expenses have to be added. After the age of 21 the health insurance for students costs 200 € a year and cover most of the medical expenses
Germany:
ost colleges are state-funded. In 2010, five of the 16 states of Germany charged tuition fees at state-funded colleges, while in 11 states tuition was provided free of charge. There are no university-sponsored scholarships in Germany, but a number of private and public institutions award scholarships, usually to cover living costs and books. Moreover, there is a law (BAFöG or Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz) which ensures that needy people can get up to 650€ per month for 4–5 years if they or their parents cannot afford all the costs involved with studying. Part (typically half) of this money is an interest-free loan which has to be repaid. Many universities planning to introduce tuition fees have announced their intention to use part of the refunded money to create scholarship programmes, although the exact details are mostly vague.
Iceland:
n state-run institutions, students only need pay registration fees; there are no tuition fees. Private institutions, however, charge fees. All students are eligible to some financial support from the Icelandic Student Loan Fund; the exact amount depends on their financial and personal situation. The student must begin to repay this money two years after commencing their study programme. In addition to Icelandic students, students from the European Union or EEA-EFTA member states are also eligible to apply for loans, if they have been working in their trade in the country for at least one year.
Annually there are a limited number of scholarships available for foreign students to study the Icelandic language and literature at the University of Iceland, offered by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Grants are available for post-graduates in research universities, which are awarded on the basis of joint submission from student and professor, and approval from the respective faculty.[5]
Italy:
As far as I am aware, it is free.
Netherlands:
Free.
Norway:
Free
UK:
Currently £3,000 a year, with fees to go up to £9,000 after 2012. By far and away the biggest.
If the rest of Europe can do it, why can't the UK?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
If the rest of Europe can do it, why can't the UK?
Because as you can judge from some of the responses we sadly live in a bigoted, ignorant and jealous society with no progressive program for developing and supporting future talent.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Interesting take on things. My brother is a BA pilot who undertook a BA training programme that took him from total novice to fully qualified commercial pilot in around 60 weeks. This was reckoned to be the equivalent of a 3 year degree and I know it was pretty full on. If I recall correctly the longest period of time off was 3 or 4 days.andyrm wrote:Something I would love to see more of is a shorter degree (2 years), with a final year of work based study where the student works on final projects in a practical work based environment where they are paid an apprentice type wage.
One of the biggest issues I have found with fresh graduates is that they know all the theory but none of the practical issues, tricks or nuances of an industry or work environment and certainly haven't mastered the art of working fast to maximise profits. A new structure like this would result in more capable and more employable graduates, while also reducing the length of time at university. I'm pretty sure all the academic work of most 3 year degrees could be fitted into a 2 year course looking back on my own experience, and I did a relatively lecture-heavy course.
We do need some more creative thought surrounding our education system from the very bottom to the very top.
We have a generation of youth totally disenfranchised by the academia for all mentality and those who are bright but not exceptional who have toed the academia for all line are being shat on from a great height.
Rioters are w*nkers but I wouldn't much fancy the options for an average intelligence 18 year old.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
If the rest of Europe can do it, why can't the UK?
Well you've detailed all the cost/fee structures for Uni at various countries but to answer your question you'd have to paste all the budget and taxation data for those countries and see where they tax and spend differently. The simple answer is not that the UK can't, but that the voters and therefore the political parties obviously don't wish to do things the same way as the countries you've mentioned. Now whether that is right or wrong is a different matter.
One thing I am trying to find out is why there were not simliar outcries when Labour upped the fees during their time in power. I don't recall it attracting as much attention then but admittedly I can't recall the full details of the changes.0 -
verylonglegs wrote:One thing I am trying to find out is why there were not simliar outcries when Labour upped the fees during their time in power. I don't recall it attracting as much attention then but admittedly I can't recall the full details of the changes.
There were protests when fees were first introduced, but there was far less uncertainty about the future pre-2008. When the current generation graduate, they'll probably be coming out into a very poor job market - I think the ILO estimated that the recession in terms of unemployment will last until about 2015.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of tuition fees policy, people are frightened now.0 -
andyrm wrote:a £6/hour job in McDonalds or a factory or a call centre (and there IS plenty of this type of work out there, register with 10+ agencies saying you will take any work going and you'll be surprised what you can get), would earn you £3600.00,
Maybe in your day. It's different now. In my personal experience of finding employment in my local area is that the agencies and factory work are basically Eastern European 'cartels' who have no interest in employing people like me. They will however happily put me in for 'higher' up jobs where i'm pitted against graduates and people of vast experience. It's complete bollocks.
I've worked in both the supermarkets in my town but they're not one bit interested in giving you something just for the holidays. It's work every week or we don't want you. There are plenty of A level students who can work every week and plenty of full timers. It's circumstance i know but it makes the point. Just because you did it (and good on you for doing so) doesn't mean everyone can.
It's certainly not a solution to the problem. There are hundreds of thousands of students. There are NOT hundreds or thousands of jobs right now.0 -
Quite.EKIMIKE wrote:andyrm wrote:a £6/hour job in McDonalds or a factory or a call centre (and there IS plenty of this type of work out there, register with 10+ agencies saying you will take any work going and you'll be surprised what you can get), would earn you £3600.00,
Maybe in your day. It's different now. In my personal experience of finding employment in my local area is that the agencies and factory work are basically Eastern European 'cartels' who have no interest in employing people like me. They will however happily put me in for 'higher' up jobs where i'm pitted against graduates and people of vast experience. It's complete bollocks.
I've worked in both the supermarkets in my town but they're not one bit interested in giving you something just for the holidays. It's work every week or we don't want you. There are plenty of A level students who can work every week and plenty of full timers. It's circumstance i know but it makes the point. Just because you did it (and good on you for doing so) doesn't mean everyone can.
It's certainly not a solution to the problem. There are hundreds of thousands of students. There are NOT hundreds or thousands of jobs right now.0 -
I have no problem with funding higher eduction and all other public services facing cuts.Lets fund it all by say a 5p in the pound income tax rise with higher earners paying more say 45 to 50 % income tax.If we all want the services ,but start paying just to keep the status quo.
Tax our already over burdened manufacturing sector {the only section apart from invisable earning} that actual produces real weath more to help pay for it all.
What has happened to the principle "if you cannot afford it do't have it"
Just in case anyone has forgotten this may help.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/bagpuss0 -
I have no problem with funding higher eduction and all other public services facing cuts.Lets fund it all by say a 5p in the pound income tax rise with higher earners paying more say 45 to 50 % income tax.If we all want the services ,but start paying just to keep the status quo.
Tax our already over burdened manufacturing sector {the only section apart from invisable earning} that actual produces real weath more to help pay for it all.
What has happened to the principle "if you cannot afford it do't have it"
Just in case anyone has forgotten this may help.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/bagpuss0 -
Government Spending Review: tax and benefits explained in beer Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 . The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £14 instead of £18. And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.
That’s how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes do tend to get the most benefit from tax reliefs and reductions. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
philthy3 wrote:Government Spending Review: tax and benefits explained in beer Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 . The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £14 instead of £18. And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.
That’s how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes do tend to get the most benefit from tax reliefs and reductions. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore.
Fascinating and yet overwhelmingly simplistic. I'm all for rewarding success but our current system is diproportionately weighed in favour of the city / big business. So many of the modern rich do not warrant the level of reward they have extracted from modern Britain.
When a manufacturing mogul who is actually generating nett wealth for Britain decides to f*ck off then yes we have a problem but many rich are that way because they are exploitative. The sooner they stop showing up the better.
Seeing as we're going completely off topic. When Tescos get planning permission in whatever town it may be, there will be an article in the local press saying something along the lines of "new store brings 200 new jobs". Does it really? Or does it ultimately just erode many more local jobs from smaller businesses. Eventually, more money is centralised to the power brokers of the giant companies through better economies of scale while local businesses are eroded away. The local trades people become employees and ultimately earn less and therefore pay less tax.
Being good at gaining market share and creaming an exhorbitant salary takes hard work, nous and ability but is not the same as generating nett wealth. Don't put high earners on a pedastal just because they have money.0 -
bagpusscp wrote:I have no problem with funding higher eduction and all other public services facing cuts.Lets fund it all by say a 5p in the pound income tax rise with higher earners paying more say 45 to 50 % income tax.If we all want the services ,but start paying just to keep the status quo.
Tax our already over burdened manufacturing sector {the only section apart from invisable earning} that actual produces real weath more to help pay for it all.
What has happened to the principle "if you cannot afford it do't have it"
Just in case anyone has forgotten this may help.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
But the point is that graduates DO pay for it - when they leave university and get a job they pay taxes just like everybody else.
And it isn't only in income tax that they contribute. Let's face it, companies don't come here for unskilled or semi-skilled workers - they can get them far more cheaply elsewhere. They come here to get highly skilled workers. So when the government manages to convince a company to come to Britain because we've got, say, good engineers, that provides a whole load of work for other people. Who will then say that they object to paying for other people's studies.
0 -
morstar wrote:Seeing as we're going completely off topic. When Tescos get planning permission in whatever town it may be, there will be an article in the local press saying something along the lines of "new store brings 200 new jobs". Does it really? Or does it ultimately just erode many more local jobs from smaller businesses. Eventually, more money is centralised to the power brokers of the giant companies through better economies of scale while local businesses are eroded away. The local trades people become employees and ultimately earn less and therefore pay less tax.
Indeed. The shopper can also suffer. When I was living in a place with lots of smaller independent shops, I found that they could beat the supermarkets hands down in terms of quality and price. Unfortunately they couldn't compete with the supermarkets' advertising budget. Which is why the local fishmongers, where you could get about 50 types of fish closed, as it lost too many customers to the local supermarket, which only had about 5 types of fish, none of them fresh.0
