1:28pm
1:28pm, 8 Oct 2024
29,583 posts
|
richmac
They've gone a bit a Greensill haven't they. More woe for the SNP
|
1:33pm
1:33pm, 8 Oct 2024
51,108 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Not defending it. Sounds dodgy but... ! A. At least it's for a good thing, renewable energy and B. MP, not MSP. How can he influence Scot Gov? Happy Tuesday.  G
|
1:48pm
1:48pm, 8 Oct 2024
23,176 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Chrisull wrote: So my points are roughly: a) tuition fees inhibit students going to university b) while not affecting your credit rating per se, they will affect your cashflow when you earn over the 27(?)K boundary - which isn't a lot of money, and can have some impact on your already tenuous ability as a first time buyer to get a mortgage c) a Labour government that comes to power on a more progressive "ticket", and then starts life by floating cuts to infrastructure, means-testing pensioners for Winter Fuel allowance (which I agree with), reducing or eliminating pots earmarked for green policies, whilst simultaneously delaying changes to non-doms and private school VAt charitable status.... Then floating increasing tuition fees seems like another kick in the teeth, even if you argue effectively it isn't the kick in the teeth it appears to be.... (a) is demonstrably untrue. In fact tuition fees and the expansion of the university sector have allowed more students to go to university. Yes, because of how they are misrepresented in the media, and the nomenclature, it does discourage some - particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds - from going to university. And I agree here, we need to get the better explanations of how the graduate contribution scheme actually works and rename it properly. (b) yes, but. This is a narrow financial argument. In general, it doesn't affect affordability calculations according to Martin Lewis. No more than spending on your credit card when applying for a mortgage. So this is also a broadly false argument. (c) is the faux left-wing outrage. None of this gets the the heart of my orginal point - Universities need cash from somewhere. Costs are rising (and have risen fast), tuition fees have been frozen for over a decade and income from international students is falling. If universities do not exist, then this will definitely inhibit students going to university. |
1:54pm
1:54pm, 8 Oct 2024
46,358 posts
|
SPR
If the donations had been to the party, there would have been a lot less uproar. Imagine if that donation had actually been for suits for Flynn...
|
|
2:03pm
2:03pm, 8 Oct 2024
46,359 posts
|
SPR
HappyG(rrr) wrote: Not defending it. Sounds dodgy but... ! A. At least it's for a good thing, renewable energy and B. MP, not MSP. How can he influence Scot Gov? Happy Tuesday. G He can influence quite a lot. He has the direct ear of those in power. It's pretty clear and I find it very hard to not see the donation as at least a thank you even if it wasn't promised beforehand. Unfortunately I don't see how it differs much from other party donations. People are donating to get an outcome they want, that's why personal donations feel like they should be avoided as much as possible. |
2:30pm
2:30pm, 8 Oct 2024
25,764 posts
|
larkim
For some courses, fozzy is undoutbedly right. For others, not so sure. But that's the broad brush of Higher Education for you. My degree, back in the day, was largely taught to lecture theatres of about 100-120 students at a time, with one lecturer. Yes, there was lower contact tutorial time and some more specialist subjects with lower staff ratios. And infrastructure like a complex library to support. But a Uni earning £9250 per year is creaming in the cash for that subject. But then compare and contrast with a specialist subject with technical infrastructure teaching to 15-20 students a year. The income is barely covering the costs, even if there is support for capital investment etc alongside. Most businesses wouldn't tolerate fixed sales prices against rising operating costs (primarily staffing, some of which is driven by central govt tax increases), essential need to invest in high quality facilities etc. £9250 has been fixed for a number of years, and that's put Unis on the back foot. As fozzy says, the cash needs to come from somewhere. Tuition fees are fundamentally a cop out by the govt managing its balance sheet by offloading "their" debt onto the citizens of the future. Am I happy my 24 yo son has £51k of student debt accrued? No, of course I'm not. The repayment terms are punitive at the moment with the addition of interest matching inflation, but ultimately the money for him to study (3x£9250) and live (3x4500 or so, plus about the same from us as parents) has to come from somewhere; either general taxation (either structured as it is today, or in some fairer / better way) or from the learner / families themselves. Or should we just accept that we should educate fewer young people to degree level? |
3:06pm
3:06pm, 8 Oct 2024
22,229 posts
|
Chrisull
(a) is demonstrably untrue. We've already it seen it is true, solely in that it acts an inhibitor (or disincentive, maybe a better choice of words by me was needed) - because - wrongly - students perceive it as a debt. My own boys going "do we want 30,000 to potentially pay back at a later date through taxation" or just go into a job? They chose uni, but they know of people that didn't. It entered into their thinking quite strongly. You explaining to me and others here on this very point shows it isn't obvious. I take your point, you've explained it well, BUT for the rest of the potential populace you need to explain it too (or rather the government does). And I didn't actually say I choose immediate banning of tuition fees and slapping it on income tax, or freezing tuition fees indefinitely. Something has to give to fund unis better, and it will be tuition fees going up as the easiest option, I accept that, but I don't have to be happy about it. Also remember when the fees go up, there is also a shortfall when it comes to housing too, which the parents or students have to find. I don't understand why the housing maintenance loan doesn't cover the full cost of accommodation, in Cornwall, most accommodation (especially the specifically student stuff) vastly outstrips the actually loan. And at the same time there's this handwringing about working class students not going to uni. In Cornwall many students don't venture beyond Cornwall/Devon in my experience, so that means living at home basically. I remember the opening lecture at secondary school to prospective students saying "and some of our students even go as far as Bristol". (they've had someone go to Oxford since, but point stands). And yes there is an extra calculated portion against parents income/wealth so the poorest escape that, but I remember my father as an elderly single parent on verge of mandatory retirement, having to cough up extra to topup the grant, compared to a friend with two farmers owning a huge amount of land getting the whole thing. I can also give examples on WFA means testing failing some other poor family members too. Yes unis need cash from somewhere, I'm on here as a massive supporter of social democratic politics, which means higher taxes, and particularly for the better off. Scandinavian style social democracy the whole way. But currently I'm also looking at the people it's coming from and the younger generations will be way worse off than us financially, in terms of mental health, in terms of climate change. We increase their burden at our peril. |
|
3:41pm
3:41pm, 8 Oct 2024
23,177 posts
|
rf_fozzy
OK. So thinking of it as "paying back £30k" (or whatever figure) is definitely the wrong way to think about it. It's not a debt (in the standard terms of things) - it's an extra graduate taxation, so *unless you are a higher earner (e.g. £50k plus)* you will not pay off the whole amount. Instead you will pay the 9% over whatever for the full term. Is this perfect: no. But. It actually benefits lower earners out of Uni - they're never going to pay it off, so they need not worry about the total or the interest rate or whatever. It's just an extra tax. But they probably gained a lot from being at Uni, so let's not worry. Anyone who isn't going to pay the full amount falls into this pot. (noting of course anyone earning less than the threshold of £25k or whatever is paying off nothing - so they haven't lost anything). It doesn't affect the super-wealthy or extreme high earners either - they'll pay it off - in some cases quite quickly. The ones who it does affect the most are those who earn £50-60k and will *just* pay it off. But if you're earning £50-60k, should we be worried? In the current big picture, probably not. This is the way to think about university tuition fees and student loans. Some of you at the back might well now be jumping ahead and then asking, OK, so if Billy or Rashida go to university, come out with £50k of "debt" and earn less than the threshold or in that bracket where you are definitely never going to pay off the whole thing. Where is that money coming from to pay for Universities - well the answer is.....general taxation and borrowing. The whole thing is a massive offset that nominally loads the cost onto students going to university now, but actually a huge chunk is going to come off general taxation. So for those calling for it to be paid out of general taxation...it is (or will be). Big shout out to Martin Lewis which is where I learned most of this. Listen to his BBC sounds podcasts on student loans - he explains it better than I do. |
|
3:49pm
3:49pm, 8 Oct 2024
23,178 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Re: fees for different courses as raised by Larkim. We could charge the cost of the course (yes, to some extent *some* arts and humanities degrees do partially subsidise STEM and medical degrees - although a lot less than you think). But I think this would be counterproductive for several reasons: (a) it would incentivise *some* students to pursue courses that were not right for them and were only doing them because it was cheaper. (b) it would make internal movement - i.e. course switching, joint honours programmes and similar much more difficult. (c) it would reduce the number of STEM graduates that we desperately need (d) it wouldn't result in a better or fairer system I think I see tuition fees as being no different to taxation and the veil of ignorance we have to apply to that - you don't know what any particular occupation is going to earn nor the market forces etc. Design a progressive taxation system that fits.... Similarly you don't know what a person is going to be good at, what their degree will lead to (not all graduates who do e.g. Physics do a Physics related job etc). Flat tuition fees are the veil of ignorance. The graduate contribution scheme post-university is how that is reconciled. |
|
3:52pm
3:52pm, 8 Oct 2024
23,179 posts
|
rf_fozzy
RE: maintenance loans. I agree about this - they need to be increased (they've not gone up in line with inflation either) - however some people will claim that this further increases student "debt..." They are also supposed to be means-tested against the household income or main earner (I forget which) - but this is all a bit of a mess as many parents aren't aware they are supposed to be making a "parental contribution" Again Martin Lewis is on the case and campaigning about it - it's in the podcast. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
