News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[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.