News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[xxChrisxx]

Nonsense. My parents didn't give me anything like £300 a month, nor could they afford to!

How on Earth did you survive then at University? I got a 1.2K loan for tuition. 3.5K maintenance loan (as it was means tested this was the maximum I could get) which went on accommodation typically (3300ish/year), books (typically 120ish/year) and other academic type stuff (pens pencils rubbers rulers). The leftovers were put towards paying bills.

If I didn't get that money I'd have had nothing to eat for a year. And I have no idea where you went, but this was a typical sum given to everyone. Most of the parents of the people I went to Uni with paid for the accommodation and the loan paid for their food, etc. I did it the other way round because it was easier to budget.

You are still sidetracking the issue of why you believe it's fair that I should pay more for the same education as someone else.


Either you are a wizard with your budget or your talking BS to try to make a point.

EDIT: Also the government assed that about £2.5K is an acceptable/agerage parental contribution (as the max maintenance loan was 5K when I went). As that's how much they deducted from us when we filled out the student loan form each year. (300*8=2400) Leaving 3.5K available for loan.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I put the word fair in inverted commas for precisely this reason: most people on this forum will not agree with the system in place in the UK, but that is irrelevant since the UK is not America!

But I'm not simply disagreeing with it, I'm asking you to defend it on legal/moral grounds... why is it "fair" to give more money to "poor" people because they're "poor"?

Of course that's how it should be, but it doesn't mean that there is no incentive to work. You shouldn't have to feed adults teasers in order to have them perform in a society.

That's a very utopian (but ultimately pipe dream) view of society and what motivates individuals. Why should someone work harder if it does not net them any benefit? If you can a) work hard and earn money to buy everything you want or b) sit and have it given to you, which will people choose?

I'm not saying that you should throw money at people left, right and centre. I'm simply saying that those who are less well off should be supported and encouraged to attend university in a view to get a better education than (for the most part) their parents.

That sounds very noble in theory... but what you're really saying is if you have an income under some value you're "poor" and wouldn't be able to get into college because you can't pay tuition. Therefore, you can have your education paid-for by the government, regardless of what your intentions are for that education after you get it. What's wrong with student loans, scholarships, and/or having a job in school?

But, again, it's not hard to understand why you don't agree since this fundamentally goes against the ideals of the US.

I'm mainly trying to understand how you justify this logically. I get the feeling the laws are made with touchy-feely good intentions in mind, but ignore where the rubber meets the road when the program doesn't work...

 

[xxChrisxx]

That sounds very noble in theory... but what you're really saying is if you have an income under some value you're "poor" and wouldn't be able to get into college because you can't pay tuition. Therefore, you can have your education paid-for by the government, regardless of what your intentions are for that education after you get it. What's wrong with student loans, scholarships, and/or having a job in school?

To be fair I believe University education should be free (for the useful courses anyway). As you are likely to pay higher rate tax as a graduate, therefore it's the government investing in the individual to contribute to society.

However the 'too poor to go' is irrelevant, as it's a loan only repayable when you are earning over a certain amount. Everyone can 'afford' the tuition because of this.

The only reason why someone couldn't afford to go, is that it's costs too much to live away. Living at home if you are a student should be banned, as you lean none of the life skills if you stay with your parents. So I'm all for giving those people the means to move away and experience the full University life.

It's solely the fact that the 'poor' also get tuition fee grants, even when I'm forced to take a full loan.

 

[cristo]

You are still sidetracking the issue of why you believe it's fair that I should pay more for the same education as someone else.

Because your parents could afford to give you £3600 a year, whereas poorer people could not. As you say, you could not have survived without the handout from your parents, so how do you expect poorer people to survive?

Either you are a wizard with your budget or your talking BS to try to make a point.

My parents were able to give me some money: enough to probably cover tuition and a bit extra. Then I had the full loan, overdraft, credit card. The main way I survived was that I worked full time over the vacations: I remember putting in a 14 day shift one summer.

But I'm not simply disagreeing with it, I'm asking you to defend it on legal/moral grounds... why is it "fair" to give more money to "poor" people because they're "poor"?

Are you being serious? Why is it fair to give a poor kid the chance to go to university?

What's wrong with student loans, scholarships, and/or having a job in school?

If scholarships existed then that would be a good solution. Unfortunately, British universities don't have surplus funds to sponsor many. As for jobs, I answered that before: there just isn't any time for a job as well as a science/engineering degree.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Because your parents could afford to give you £3600 a year, whereas poorer people could not. As you say, you could not have survived without the handout from your parents, so how do you expect poorer people to survive?

I wasn't at Uni for 12 months. I got 8months * 300. = 2400. They gave me that because it was what was deemed to be acceptable for us when we filled out the loan forms.

See the break down above.

My parents were able to give me some money: enough to probably cover tuition and a bit extra. Then I had the full loan, overdraft, credit card. The main way I survived was that I worked full time over the vacations: I remember putting in a 14 day shift one summer.

You didn't get a loan for your tuition? How much was this 'bit extra'?
Also I had a job in the summer to keep out of my overdraft (failed horribly in the last year though) and because I didn't want a credit card.

That's standard student stuff.

 

[JaredJames]

Actually, that's not true, and I'm surprised you don't know this, given that you clearly have a loan with them. Since you have no equity, should you default on the loan your parent/s will be required to pay the loan on your behalf. So, unlike you neighbour in your analogy, you parents are involved.

Correct Chris, this is b*llocks.

Cristo, I do have a loan with them and I can go into great detail regarding the specifics of the terms if you would like.

I assure you cristo, your parents are not involved.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Are you being serious?

I'm deadly serious.

Why is it fair to give a poor kid the chance to go to university?

Based on the definition I gave above, it isn't fair. The poor kid is given an education on the government's dime, while the "rich" kid/family is left to fend for themselves. Unequal opportunity for use of government funds, in addition to the fact that it is likely the "rich" family has paid far more into the system in the first place. You're asking the "rich" to pay for their own education, plus the education of anyone deemed "poor."

If scholarships existed then that would be a good solution. Unfortunately, British universities don't have surplus funds to sponsor many.

So it sounds like the government mandated tuition cap is in fact preventing people with less money from getting higher education unless the government also gives handouts. If they had more money, they could budget to allow for more scholarships!

In fact, this sounds like an argument for universities to set their tuition based on the quality of their services!

As for jobs, I answered that before: there just isn't any time for a job as well as a science/engineering degree.

There are many examples to the contrary, even if it's only part-time to supplement other sources of income such as loans.

 

[JaredJames]

Can people here please differentiate between someone being given a loan for university and someone being given a grant.

Mech, you seem to be the worst here in this regard. Yes, the government do initially front the money for the loans, but once you leave uni you are expected to get a job and pay it back. You end up paying around 5% I believe of your overall wage, so in effect you are paying an increased tax rate until the loan is repaid.

It isn't simply a government handout (although for 'lesser' degrees it can become that).

 

[JaredJames]

Based on the definition I gave above, it isn't fair. The poor kid is given an education on the government's dime, while the "rich" kid/family is left to fend for themselves. Unequal opportunity for use of government funds, in addition to the fact that it is likely the "rich" family has paid far more into the system in the first place. You're asking the "rich" to pay for their own education, plus the education of anyone deemed "poor."

Not true.

Point 1, as per my above post.

Point 2, everyone can get the tuition fee loan regardless of parental income. It is the cost of living loan which is affected by parental income.

Under the current system, you are expected to pay towards your child's university living costs if you earn above a certain amount. Which I do think is unfair.

 

[cristo]

I wasn't at Uni for 12 months. I got 8months * 300. = 2400. They gave me that because it was what was deemed to be acceptable for us when we filled out the loan forms.

So, seemingly, they gave you the amount that the government would give a student whose parents could not afford it!

You didn't get a loan for your tuition? How much was this 'bit extra'?

Tuition fee loans are a recent thing, they did not exist when I went to university. I can't remember exact amounts, since it was a long time since undergrad, but it wasn't much. Anyway, my financial situation is hardly the topic of this thread!

I assure you cristo, your parents are not involved.

Your parents sign the form agreeing for you to obtain the loan, therefore they are involved.

 

[JaredJames]

Your parents sign the form agreeing for you to obtain the loan, therefore they are involved.

Nope, they didn't.

I and only I sign the loan agreement.

The only document they sign is to declare that their income figures provided are accurate and true and if required they can provide evidence to back it up.

 

[xxChrisxx]

So, seemingly, they gave you the amount that the government would give a student whose parents could not afford it!

If you look back at what I have actually written in other posts. I AGREE WITH GIVING MAINTENANCE GRANTS. As that's fair as it enables les well off students to go and survive at Uni.

Capped and bolded just so you don't miss it.

I do not agree with giving people a tuition grant when it's a 100% loan for everyone else, as it's paid for when the student gets a job. As they are competing for the same pay and jobs as me. Yet they are in a better position year on year as they have less loan and therefore less interest.

Your parents sign the form agreeing for you to obtain the loan, therefore they are involved.

They are not guarantors though. Your parents are there for means testing only. Which is the stupid thing, it's the students loan. Yet it's means tested...

 

[cristo]

This is going round in circles now, so I'm going to drop out of the discussion after one last point:

There are many examples to the contrary, even if it's only part-time to supplement other sources of income such as loans.

In this thread we are not talking about the US, where it is perhaps possible to have a part time job. University is a full-time endeavour, I remember in one of my first welcome talks the person giving it admitted this, saying that the number of hours you are expected to work is far above the EU legal working week. Would you tell someone who worked full-time, and did overtime, that he should take on a part-time job on the side? No.

 

[JaredJames]

They are not guarantors though. Your parents are there for means testing only. Which is the stupid thing, it's the students loan. Yet it's means tested...

I only signed my loan agreement a few months back, they don't sign any document regarding the loan itself aside from providing income details.

If people don't accept this, so be it, but that doesn't change things. Aside from the means testing, your parents have no connection to your student loan in anyway (unless you bring taxes into it).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Mech, you seem to be the worst here in this regard. Yes, the government do initially front the money for the loans, but once you leave uni you are expected to get a job and pay it back. You end up paying around 5% I believe of your overall wage, so in effect you are paying an increased tax rate until the loan is repaid.

So then we're back to the original question- does the tuition cap actually help students? It seems to me it limits a university's resources and lowers the academic bar...

You mentioned much earlier in this thread that I would be surprised at what money can do to get someone into a university (specifically a rich kid with less than perfect academics); what did you mean by that?

It isn't simply a government handout (although for 'lesser' degrees it can become that).

Ok well at least they're made to pay the loan back...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It has been claimed that it isn't "fair" for rich people to have a better chance to pay for their kids' to college. Being that wealth (usually) has a direct correlation to effort, and in the academic world grades are usually correlated to effort, is it "fair" for straight-A students to be more likely to get into college than straight-C students?

On the one hand academic accomplishment is defended and rewarded, but on the other economic success is looked down upon...

 

[Kurdt]

The fact of the matter is that the UK has always had a socialist approach to higher education whether you agree with it or not. The fundamental matter is that most students disagree with the digression from the socialist policies of the past. This whole thread is getting bogged down in the minutiae of international ideaology.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This whole thread is getting bogged down in the minutiae of international ideaology.

What should we be discussing then?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So, has anything happened with this in the last few weeks? Are the tuitions going to be raised? Has anyone studied the projected consequences of the raise?

 

[JaredJames]

Well the vote passed, the fees are being raised but I don't think it kicks in for three years.

 

[P-Jay1]

I think the decision to an increase in tuition fees is atrocious. I do think something needs to be done about the shear volume of people being going to university, however this is not the answer. A ridiculous increase in tuition fee is just the governments way of looking after their own, i.e the rich; the upper class. It should be about ability and not ability to pay.

I firmly believe that only the cream of the crop should go to university and they should get their tuition fees, accomodation and other expenses paid for on top of a bloody good wage. And this would be paid for by cutting things like the tax a UK citizen pays towards the royal family, and taking away HUGE bankers' bonuses (tonight it was actually reported on the 10 O'clock news that the main man behind the HBOS shambles is getting a £2M bonus- What?!).

Regarding those protests I actually happened to attend as I am a current student in London. It's good to finally see students standing up (even if if did take a 3 fold increase in tuition fees) and taking action, which should have happened long ago because £3000-4000 is already beyond belief. However I do think the few protesters who did resort to violence gave the opportunity for the government to undermine the whole thing, which is a real shame. Nevertheless I think the message was recieved.

 

[JaredJames]

Without going to deep back into this issue, I do agree that there are certain subjects that shouldn't be valid for student funding and/or students should need to be the best to get into uni. That way it's all about ability.

The problem now is that there are a hell of a lot of people in uni doing useless subjects that are worthless. It's a big waste of money.

 

[mheslep]

I think the decision to an increase in tuition fees is atrocious. I do think something needs to be done about the shear volume of people being going to university, however this is not the answer. A ridiculous increase in tuition fee is just the governments way of looking after their own, i.e the rich; the upper class. It should be about ability and not ability to pay.

I firmly believe that only the cream of the crop should go to university and they should get their tuition fees, accomodation and other expenses paid for on top of a bloody good wage.

Unlike, say, old age pensions or public transportation of which everyone takes part to at least some degree, public funding of U. education is one of most inequitable examples I can imagine. It is where the government takes by force, via VAT and other taxes that everyone pays, including the poorest, from those who don't happen to have the ability to make the marks required to enter the U., and give it to the elite few who happen to be born with the ability. That to my mind warrants the term atrocious.

And this would be paid for by cutting things like the tax a UK citizen pays towards the royal family, and taking away HUGE bankers' bonuses (tonight it was actually reported on the 10 O'clock news that the main man behind the HBOS shambles is getting a £2M bonus- What?!).

If the government eliminated all of the Royal income of http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/british-royal-family-told-to-cut-expenses_100441633.html", if enough people decide to redefine theft-by-government as an Orwellian fairness.

Regarding those protests I actually happened to attend as I am a current student in London. It's good to finally see students standing up (even if if did take a 3 fold increase in tuition fees) and taking action, which should have happened long ago because £3000-4000 is already beyond belief. However I do think the few protesters who did resort to violence gave the opportunity for the government to undermine the whole thing, which is a real shame.

Who undermined the protest? The government, or the violent protesters? If you indeed consider the violent actions a shame, then were you and others up front calling for them to stop wanton destruction? I've seen the videos; didn't see any calls for restraint, only the opposite.

 

[JaredJames]

from those who don't happen to have the ability to make the marks required to enter the U., and give it to the elite few who happen to be born with the ability. That to my mind warrants the term atrocious.

I disagree with that statement, unless there is a mental condition preventing you, everyone has an equal opportunity to work hard and achieve the requirements.

 

[mheslep]

I disagree with that statement, unless there is a mental condition preventing you, everyone has an equal opportunity to work hard and achieve the requirements.

And I disagree with this one, in several ways.

For some, even all the hard work in the world will not grant them the required A-levels required to allow them to join the http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/14/politics.highereducation" of the UK university aged population entering a university. There is a reason after all that is called "higher education", not "average bloke education".

In addition to the scholastic aptitude granted by genetics, it is well known that family influence has a great deal to do with scholastic achievement of children. Well to-do, intact families tend to encourage children to do well in school; poorer, broken families not as much. There are exceptions of course, if I recall https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3048006&postcount=190").

Last, what if someone simply chooses not to attend university? What if they've simply have hated the academic classroom all their life, love working with their hands instead or whatever? Then who am I, or you, to tell them "cough it up for the man down at Oxford", especially when he's out kicking in windows?

 

[JaredJames]

mheslep, as nice as the "why should they pay" argument sounds, I'd rather see the money being paid to someone to go to university than to some bum who hasn't worked all their life and spends their days in the local pub.

Regardless, I believe people should get into university on academics. Family life is irrelevant. The school system gives the equal opportunity, so there is no difference between me in school and someone else. If their home life is detrimental that is nothing to do with the schooling system and their home life shouldn't be taken into account - next to going into care, there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Now, if you aren't up to scratch (even with your best effort), then it's over. You don't go. That's what I'm trying to get at. If you don't meet the criteria, then there's little point you attending university. Especially not to do some mediocre course that has the job prospects of a Welsh coal miner when they leave.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, as nice as the "why should they pay" argument sounds, I'd rather see the money being paid to someone to go to university than to some bum who hasn't worked all their life and spends their days in the local pub.

"The money"? We can be more specific. It is his money, the guy at the pub if you like, and in the case of U tuition fees, like no other public funding case I can imagine, he has no way to directly benefit from the taxes he pays for another's tuition. Actually the situation is worse yet: he is forced to pay to increase the economic inequality between him and the U attendee, who will as a result have a higher lifetime income (almost certainly).

Regardless, I believe people should get into university on academics...

Sure, I agree with you. I'll encourage my kids to go and anyone else that will listen to do the same. I will not vote to have the cops and a tax collector visit my neighbors to yank money from them to pay for my kid's U education.

Now, if you aren't up to scratch (even with your best effort), then it's over. You don't go. That's what I'm trying to get at. If you don't meet the criteria, then there's little point you attending university. Especially not to do some mediocre course that has the job prospects of a Welsh coal miner when they leave.

Agreed again. We differ on how to get there.

 

[JaredJames]

It is his money

If he has never worked and is on benefits, it is tax payers money.

I'd prefer to see the money go to education than to some bum who doesn't work and never has just so he can p*ss it away in the pub every day (you'd be surprised how many do that where I live).

As previously here, the money is a loan, they get it back once your working. So it's not just free money and as long as you go on to get a job they eventually get it back. So you aren't forcing anyone to pay it. I, eventually, will pay for my own tuition.

 

[mheslep]

If he has never worked and is on benefits, it is tax payers money.

I'd prefer to see the money go to education than to some bum who doesn't work and never has just so he can p*ss it away in the pub every day (you'd be surprised how many do that where I live).

Oh, I misunderstood you. I was talking about sources of revenue, tax payers, and you were apparently referring to decisions as to where it should be spent - higher eduction vs welfare - fair enough.

As previously here, the money is a loan, they get it back once your working. So it's not just free money and as long as you go on to get a job they eventually get it back. So you aren't forcing anyone to pay it. I, eventually, will pay for my own tuition.

Nice idea, but if that were true the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/UK_taxes.svg/500px-UK_taxes.svg.png" , for which everyone pays the same rates. The coal miner is helping you out when he buys his house, his car, his TV, and especially when he visits the pub.

 

[JaredJames]

Nice idea, but if that were true the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/UK_taxes.svg/500px-UK_taxes.svg.png" , for which everyone pays the same rates. The coal miner is helping you out when he buys his house, his car, his TV, and especially when he visits the pub.

VAT is currently 20% as of 4th January 2011.

I can't blame the VAT rates on students. Not when we're p*ssing away £13 billion on 2 weeks of sport next year.

EDIT: Sorry, I see what the graph is now. VAT used to be 15% so I got confused. You are referring to revenue collected and not the value of it on a product.

Fuel duty 5% my a*s. They take something like 50p (or more) per litre plus VAT. There must be more than 5% coming from fuel.

 

[mheslep]

VAT is currently 20% as of 4th January 2011.

I can't blame the VAT rates on students. Not when we're p*ssing away £13 billion on 2 weeks of sport next year.

Right, 20% rate, totaling 15% all money the UK government takes in. Also note that the "Betting and gaming duties" take in £1.5 billion. The point is one can't say you'll eventually pay for your own exclusive, some get it, some don't government tuition when there is a large flat rate sales tax in place.

 

[JaredJames]

Right, 20% rate, totaling 15% all money the UK government takes in. Also note that the "Betting and gaming duties" take in £1.5 billion. The point is one can't say you'll eventually pay for your own exclusive, some get it, some don't government tuition when there is a large flat rate sales tax in place.

Once I get a job, whatever I take out I am required to pay back + interest. I'm paying for my own tuition.

Public funds are used to initially pay the student loan, but if you pay it back you've paid for your own tuition. You are only paying someone elses via taxes when that person fails to get a job and repay their loan - hence me not liking certain degrees.

Ideally, everyone who took a student loan would be initially funded by the tax payer and then this money would be paid back once a job is acquired. However, this isn't always the case and so a proportion never pay it back.

I'd also add that if you take the total amount of VAT and other taxes I pay in my lifetime, it covers the tuition fees (the hidden bit you don't get a loan for and the government just pays) many times over.

 

[mugaliens]

Once I get a job, whatever I take out I am required to pay back + interest. I'm paying for my own tuition.

Public funds are used to initially pay the student loan, but if you pay it back you've paid for your own tuition. You are only paying someone elses via taxes when that person fails to get a job and repay their loan - hence me not liking certain degrees.

Ideally, everyone who took a student loan would be initially funded by the tax payer and then this money would be paid back once a job is acquired. However, this isn't always the case and so a proportion never pay it back.

I'd also add that if you take the total amount of VAT and other taxes I pay in my lifetime, it covers the tuition fees (the hidden bit you don't get a loan for and the government just pays) many times over.

How much of your income funds another's tuition, percentage-wise?

FICA, FUTA, SUTA, at least I think I know where it's going.

 

[JaredJames]

The number that matters here is how much money each tax payer contributes to the tuition of a person who doesn't pay the loan back.

The moment a person contributes that amount back, the tax payer has no longer funded their education.

 

[mugaliens]

Right, 20% rate, totaling 15% all money the UK government takes in. Also note that the "Betting and gaming duties" take in £1.5 billion. The point is one can't say you'll eventually pay for your own exclusive, some get it, some don't government tuition when there is a large flat rate sales tax in place.

Yet are you paying 40% in taxes like they do in Germany?

Here's an idea. Let's pay just 10% and put it upon the powers that be to simply get by on that.

Hard luck? Rolls eyes, yes, but it's a heck of a lot easier to calculate.

 

[JaredJames]

Where did you pluck that number from? The only 40% tax I am immediately aware of is the inheritance tax.

 

[mugaliens]

Where did you pluck that number from? The only 40% tax I am immediately aware of is the inheritance tax.

From several dozen friends of mine who live in Germany.

Blinks.

Twice.

If you're only paying 20%, count yourself VERY lucky!

 

[JaredJames]

Ah, thought you meant the UK paid 40%.

Still ridiculous fuel duty here though.

 

[mheslep]

Once I get a job, whatever I take out I am required to pay back + interest. I'm paying for my own tuition.

Public funds are used to initially pay the student loan, but if you pay it back you've paid for your own tuition. You are only paying someone elses via taxes when that person fails to get a job and repay their loan - hence me not liking certain degrees.

Ideally, everyone who took a student loan would be initially funded by the tax payer and then this money would be paid back once a job is acquired. However, this isn't always the case and so a proportion never pay it back.

Ok, but the topic of the thread is UK tuition fee cap increases, not student loans. That is, one might take out a loan to pay the annual £3000 (capped) tuition, but the government is paying the university maybe another ~£9000 that you never see, and you are never obligated to pay back directly.

I'd also add that if you take the total amount of VAT and other taxes I pay in my lifetime, it covers the tuition fees (the hidden bit you don't get a loan for and the government just pays) many times over.

No it doesn't, since as you know your taxes will go for much more than education funding. On the spending end almost a third of all UK taxes go first to social welfare (which you and the miner get a share of), then to NHS (which you and the miner get a share of), and only then to higher education (which only you get a share of), then to all the rest like interest on the UK debt.

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, but the topic of the thread is UK tuition fee cap increases, not student loans. That is, one might take out a loan to pay the annual £3000 (capped) tuition, but the government is paying the university maybe another ~£9000 that you never see, and you are never obligated to pay back directly.

Once I've contributed that money back, however that may be I've paid back what the government used. One of the lines of thought here is that people who go to uni earn more and so contribute more. I know what you're thinking right know, bear with it and continue reading.

No it doesn't, since as you know your taxes will go for much more than education funding. On the spending end almost a third of all UK taxes go first to social welfare (which you and the miner get a share of), then to NHS (which you and the miner get a share of), and only then to higher education (which only you get a share of), then to all the rest like interest on the UK debt.

Firstly, I'm not sure where you got your tax figures from but taxes aren't that cut and dried. We pay national insurance, which is separate from other tax. This is to cover things like pensions, NHS, benefits etc. Yes other taxes may go in as well, but this is the primary source. This is collected separately to income tax.

If I don't use benefits and the NHS, my contributions to that could be said to be repaying my student loan. I know, it sounds complicated. But it follows the line of thought of "why should someone else pay for uni", only this time it's "why should I pay for someone's healthcare & benefits".

In the last 5 years I haven't used the NHS and last year alone I paid nearly £700 in national insurance. So I've paid £700 to the government and had nothing in return. I see that as paying back some of the 'hidden' tuition costs.

Obviously, it's not as simple as all that and things 'balance out' in a manner of speaking - I contribute to your health care costs, you contribute to my education. The fact is, the NHS takes far more money than higher education. In my lifetime, whilst working I will pay far more towards other peoples healthcare than they will contribute back towards my higher education.

 

[cristo]

From several dozen friends of mine who live in Germany.

Then your "several dozen" friends must be on a high-end salary (see here for info on tax rates in Germany). Unless, of course, you are talking about other taxes on top of income tax, in which case you should make that clear, and include other such taxes in the UK also.

 

[mheslep]

Edit: the current system is of course up to you others in the UK to do as you see fit. I object here only to calling the public U. funding something other than what it really is, on average: a transfer from the poorer classes to the better off ones.

Once I've contributed that money back, however that may be I've paid back what the government used. One of the lines of thought here is that people who go to uni earn more and so contribute more.

Or not. You could become a doc/nurse/scientist/administrator and go to work with the other 1.5 million folks at NHS or other government funded agency and continue to draw a government salary for the rest of your life. Not that they don't earn their wages, but there is no getting around the fact that some Welsh miner helped to pay not only for that U education, but now also perhaps an NHS salary or a teaching position back at ye old U again.

I know what you're thinking right know, bear with it and continue reading.

Firstly, I'm not sure where you got your tax figures from but taxes aren't that cut and dried.

My figures were not taxes but spending percentages, which includes from the other side of the balance sheet insurance, taxes, and money the government borrows. The spending categories by size are as I stated, social welfare 28%, NHS 18%, education 13%, etc. All three of which are expanding at unsustainable rates, http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/u..._a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b", I do not know about presently.

If I don't use benefits and the NHS, my contributions to that could be said to be repaying my student loan. I know, it sounds complicated.

You almost certainly will use NHS eventually, as you know even at this age. Likewise a Welsh miner can use NHS; he isn't locked out because of insufficient A levels as he is in the case of attending university, though he pays for both U education and NHS.

But it follows the line of thought of "why should someone else pay for uni", only this time it's "why should I pay for someone's healthcare & benefits".

You're not, you're likely paying for your own healthcare when you're older or some accident down the line, when the cost will, on average, be far more than £700; actually it is likely the years of paying-in while young still won't cover it later, and instead the government is already borrowing abroad to make up the difference.