Not often I agree with Vince Cable, but I do on this occasion.
Sir Vince Cable claims scrapping university tuition fees would be "very dangerous and stupid". The Lib Dem leadership favourite told Sophy Ridge on Sunday that the "cheap populist gesture" would create an unfair system. He said: "If you don't have any form of fees, I mean who pays for universities? "How do you end this discrimination between the 40% of students who go to university and would be subsided as opposed to the 60% who don't? That would be highly inequitable."
Sir Vince acknowledged Labour's 2017 manifesto pledge to scrap fees had proved popular with voters.
He said university funding should be looked at, but that schools should be the priority as they are "horribly underfunded". "We're getting teachers, teaching assistants being laid off. I mean that's where the real priority is at the moment," Sir Vince said. "Yes, by all means let's look at universities, but universities are about the only bit of the publicly financed sector which are flourishing.
For goodness sake with some cheap populist gesture, killing that off would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do."
Except nearly every other country comparable to ours recognises that having a highly skilled and qualified workforce means future gains. The amount we would lose from free tuition would be more than gained back by future profits and from not having to pay over the odds for desperately needed foreign skilled labour, especially in the NHS.
Vince represents a generation that had free tuition, benefited from it, and now wants to pull the ladder up in the face of all evidence. Hopefully he and the rest of the fogeys who have this backwards attitude will shuffle off sooner rather than later and stopping holding this country back.
So why should the non-Uni attending 60% pay for the attending 40%?
Incidentally I never 'benefited from it' as my family couldn't afford for me to go to university for three years, even back in the 70's.
Both my kids went but the loan amount they have to pay back is not exactly punitive as their salaries are not that high. In fact I doubt my daughter will ever have to pay her loan back as she has children herself and only works part time.
Why should the uni-attending population pay higher taxes (generally speaking as degree holders generally make more money than non-degree holders)? It is generally accepted (by most other countries at least) that educating one's population means higher tax revenues in the future. So it pays for itself. You could use the 'why should I have to pay' argument for literally any public spending that you do not directly benefit from. It is such a fallacious point I'm surprised to see you of all people invoke it.
And when I say benefit, I mean as a generation. Even if you did not personally go to university, the country as a whole would have benefited from a wholesale investment in the country's education and skills.
And your last point proves why the tuition/student loan system is total bollocks and ought to be scrapped: too many people don't even pay back what they supposedly owe, yet we spend millions administrating a pointless system when it would be far cheaper and effective just to directly fund tuition just like we do for schools.
Those who don't earn enough never have to pay it back, those who earn enough can pay it back. What's the problem?
Did you miss the point about the millions spent administrating the system in the first place? And those who do start paying it back pay it off at the time in their lives when they have the least money?
Of course I didn't miss the point mate, I can read even though I didn't go to Uni
When they earn the least, they pay the least. I can assure you that the repayment levels have never been a problem for my kids and neither of them earnt/earn much.
And you see absolutely no problem with the government racking up masses of debt that will never be meaningfully repaid, yet the taxpayers as a whole keep writing off debt each year and are paying millions to administer this insane system when it would be, overall, easier and cheaper to just fund it at source than to run what is nothing better than a glorified ponzi scheme with the taxpayer underwriting it all?
Not often I agree with Vince Cable, but I do on this occasion.
Sir Vince Cable claims scrapping university tuition fees would be "very dangerous and stupid". The Lib Dem leadership favourite told Sophy Ridge on Sunday that the "cheap populist gesture" would create an unfair system. He said: "If you don't have any form of fees, I mean who pays for universities? "How do you end this discrimination between the 40% of students who go to university and would be subsided as opposed to the 60% who don't? That would be highly inequitable."
Sir Vince acknowledged Labour's 2017 manifesto pledge to scrap fees had proved popular with voters.
He said university funding should be looked at, but that schools should be the priority as they are "horribly underfunded". "We're getting teachers, teaching assistants being laid off. I mean that's where the real priority is at the moment," Sir Vince said. "Yes, by all means let's look at universities, but universities are about the only bit of the publicly financed sector which are flourishing.
For goodness sake with some cheap populist gesture, killing that off would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do."
Except nearly every other country comparable to ours recognises that having a highly skilled and qualified workforce means future gains. The amount we would lose from free tuition would be more than gained back by future profits and from not having to pay over the odds for desperately needed foreign skilled labour, especially in the NHS.
Vince represents a generation that had free tuition, benefited from it, and now wants to pull the ladder up in the face of all evidence. Hopefully he and the rest of the fogeys who have this backwards attitude will shuffle off sooner rather than later and stopping holding this country back.
So why should the non-Uni attending 60% pay for the attending 40%?
Incidentally I never 'benefited from it' as my family couldn't afford for me to go to university for three years, even back in the 70's.
Both my kids went but the loan amount they have to pay back is not exactly punitive as their salaries are not that high. In fact I doubt my daughter will ever have to pay her loan back as she has children herself and only works part time.
Why should the uni-attending population pay higher taxes (generally speaking as degree holders generally make more money than non-degree holders)? It is generally accepted (by most other countries at least) that educating one's population means higher tax revenues in the future. So it pays for itself. You could use the 'why should I have to pay' argument for literally any public spending that you do not directly benefit from. It is such a fallacious point I'm surprised to see you of all people invoke it.
And when I say benefit, I mean as a generation. Even if you did not personally go to university, the country as a whole would have benefited from a wholesale investment in the country's education and skills.
And your last point proves why the tuition/student loan system is total bollocks and ought to be scrapped: too many people don't even pay back what they supposedly owe, yet we spend millions administrating a pointless system when it would be far cheaper and effective just to directly fund tuition just like we do for schools.
Those who don't earn enough never have to pay it back, those who earn enough can pay it back. What's the problem?
Did you miss the point about the millions spent administrating the system in the first place? And those who do start paying it back pay it off at the time in their lives when they have the least money?
Of course I didn't miss the point mate, I can read even though I didn't go to Uni
When they earn the least, they pay the least. I can assure you that the repayment levels have never been a problem for my kids and neither of them earnt/earn much.
And you see absolutely no problem with the government racking up masses of debt that will never be meaningfully repaid, yet the taxpayers as a whole keep writing off debt each year and are paying millions to administer this insane system when it would be, overall, easier and cheaper to just fund it at source than to run what is nothing better than a glorified ponzi scheme with the taxpayer underwriting it all?
I see it as preferable to free tuition, yes.
Even though it is, overall, a bigger waste of money and flies in the face of what nearly every other comparable country has discovered?
Not often I agree with Vince Cable, but I do on this occasion.
Sir Vince Cable claims scrapping university tuition fees would be "very dangerous and stupid". The Lib Dem leadership favourite told Sophy Ridge on Sunday that the "cheap populist gesture" would create an unfair system. He said: "If you don't have any form of fees, I mean who pays for universities? "How do you end this discrimination between the 40% of students who go to university and would be subsided as opposed to the 60% who don't? That would be highly inequitable."
Sir Vince acknowledged Labour's 2017 manifesto pledge to scrap fees had proved popular with voters.
He said university funding should be looked at, but that schools should be the priority as they are "horribly underfunded". "We're getting teachers, teaching assistants being laid off. I mean that's where the real priority is at the moment," Sir Vince said. "Yes, by all means let's look at universities, but universities are about the only bit of the publicly financed sector which are flourishing.
For goodness sake with some cheap populist gesture, killing that off would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do."
Except nearly every other country comparable to ours recognises that having a highly skilled and qualified workforce means future gains. The amount we would lose from free tuition would be more than gained back by future profits and from not having to pay over the odds for desperately needed foreign skilled labour, especially in the NHS.
Vince represents a generation that had free tuition, benefited from it, and now wants to pull the ladder up in the face of all evidence. Hopefully he and the rest of the fogeys who have this backwards attitude will shuffle off sooner rather than later and stopping holding this country back.
So why should the non-Uni attending 60% pay for the attending 40%?
Incidentally I never 'benefited from it' as my family couldn't afford for me to go to university for three years, even back in the 70's.
Both my kids went but the loan amount they have to pay back is not exactly punitive as their salaries are not that high. In fact I doubt my daughter will ever have to pay her loan back as she has children herself and only works part time.
Why should the uni-attending population pay higher taxes (generally speaking as degree holders generally make more money than non-degree holders)? It is generally accepted (by most other countries at least) that educating one's population means higher tax revenues in the future. So it pays for itself. You could use the 'why should I have to pay' argument for literally any public spending that you do not directly benefit from. It is such a fallacious point I'm surprised to see you of all people invoke it.
And when I say benefit, I mean as a generation. Even if you did not personally go to university, the country as a whole would have benefited from a wholesale investment in the country's education and skills.
And your last point proves why the tuition/student loan system is total bollocks and ought to be scrapped: too many people don't even pay back what they supposedly owe, yet we spend millions administrating a pointless system when it would be far cheaper and effective just to directly fund tuition just like we do for schools.
Those who don't earn enough never have to pay it back, those who earn enough can pay it back. What's the problem?
Did you miss the point about the millions spent administrating the system in the first place? And those who do start paying it back pay it off at the time in their lives when they have the least money?
Of course I didn't miss the point mate, I can read even though I didn't go to Uni
When they earn the least, they pay the least. I can assure you that the repayment levels have never been a problem for my kids and neither of them earnt/earn much.
And you see absolutely no problem with the government racking up masses of debt that will never be meaningfully repaid, yet the taxpayers as a whole keep writing off debt each year and are paying millions to administer this insane system when it would be, overall, easier and cheaper to just fund it at source than to run what is nothing better than a glorified ponzi scheme with the taxpayer underwriting it all?
I see it as preferable to free tuition, yes.
Even though it is, overall, a bigger waste of money and flies in the face of what nearly every other comparable country has discovered?
I can compare to the two countries in which I have worked extensively, both of which can be admired in many ways.
Germany only abolished fees in 2014. One region is now reinstating the fees and it looks like the others will follow very soon.
Singapore has always had fees and no plans for free tuition.
@Rob7Lee here is a report that shows that real income has fallen since 2008 in the under 40's, this is a far better measure of pay standards than net income. It might also go some way to explain the effectiveness of Corbyn's anti-elitism/wealth distribution campaigning within that same demographic.
At the same time the tipping point, that is the age at which a voter is more likely to have voted Conservative than Labour, is now 47 – up from 34 at the start of the campaign.* If that trend continues in parallel with government mistakes then the result of the next election becomes more and more certain.
Not often I agree with Vince Cable, but I do on this occasion.
Sir Vince Cable claims scrapping university tuition fees would be "very dangerous and stupid". The Lib Dem leadership favourite told Sophy Ridge on Sunday that the "cheap populist gesture" would create an unfair system. He said: "If you don't have any form of fees, I mean who pays for universities? "How do you end this discrimination between the 40% of students who go to university and would be subsided as opposed to the 60% who don't? That would be highly inequitable."
Sir Vince acknowledged Labour's 2017 manifesto pledge to scrap fees had proved popular with voters.
He said university funding should be looked at, but that schools should be the priority as they are "horribly underfunded". "We're getting teachers, teaching assistants being laid off. I mean that's where the real priority is at the moment," Sir Vince said. "Yes, by all means let's look at universities, but universities are about the only bit of the publicly financed sector which are flourishing.
For goodness sake with some cheap populist gesture, killing that off would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do."
As a childless single person I am subsidising school education, nursery fees, married couple allowances, pensioner fuel allowances, agricultural subsidies to billionaires, defence contractors, railway companies, WHFC, DUP handouts and many more. Why target one section of society who have limited ability to pay?
Not often I agree with Vince Cable, but I do on this occasion.
Sir Vince Cable claims scrapping university tuition fees would be "very dangerous and stupid". The Lib Dem leadership favourite told Sophy Ridge on Sunday that the "cheap populist gesture" would create an unfair system. He said: "If you don't have any form of fees, I mean who pays for universities? "How do you end this discrimination between the 40% of students who go to university and would be subsided as opposed to the 60% who don't? That would be highly inequitable."
Sir Vince acknowledged Labour's 2017 manifesto pledge to scrap fees had proved popular with voters.
He said university funding should be looked at, but that schools should be the priority as they are "horribly underfunded". "We're getting teachers, teaching assistants being laid off. I mean that's where the real priority is at the moment," Sir Vince said. "Yes, by all means let's look at universities, but universities are about the only bit of the publicly financed sector which are flourishing.
For goodness sake with some cheap populist gesture, killing that off would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do."
As a childless single person I am subsidising school education, nursery fees, married couple allowances, pensioner fuel allowances, agricultural subsidies to billionaires, defence contractors, railway companies, WHFC, DUP handouts and many more. Why target one section of society who have limited ability to pay?
But the repayments, as I explained above, only kick-in when salary is at a certain level and are never onerous as my kids have experienced even on low salaries.
Student loan Interest rates currently 4.6% when BoE base rate is 0.25%. That will increase debt for all but the luckiest kids who have a well paid job and don't have to pay stupid rents dictated by our broken housing policy. Look forward to having your kids at home until you retire.
Student loan Interest rates currently 4.6% when BoE base rate is 0.25%. That will increase debt for all but the luckiest kids who have a well paid job and don't have to pay stupid rents dictated by our brkken housing policy. Look forward to having your kids at home until you retire.
They do not have to pay back large amounts. It is an affordable amount even at low salaries. Our housing situation, which is totally shit and unacceptable, has nothing to do with loan repayments.
My daughter fortunately has a place with her husband and family, my son rents and cannot afford a mortgage. Even without loan repayments he still could not afford a mortgage. You cannot link the two.
Loan repayments are affordable at all levels, housing is a fucking joke.
Student loan Interest rates currently 4.6% when BoE base rate is 0.25%. That will increase debt for all but the luckiest kids who have a well paid job and don't have to pay stupid rents dictated by our brkken housing policy. Look forward to having your kids at home until you retire.
They do not have to pay back large amounts. It is an affordable amount even at low salaries. Our housing situation, which is totally shit and unacceptable, has nothing to do with loan repayments.
My daughter fortunately has a place with her husband and family, my son rents and cannot afford a mortgage. Even without loan repayments he still could not afford a mortgage. You cannot link the two.
Loan repayments are affordable at all levels, housing is a fucking joke.
But the debt will grow and will be an albatross round the necks of our young adults who will have to pay for the final salary pensions of our public services, social care for parents, and joke projects like Trident renewal, unproven Sizewell C, new Heathrow runway with no improvement in infrastructure and HS2. We are borrowing from their futures. No wonder many are turning to Corbyn, who alas does not understand how Brexit will devestate our economy.
Student loan Interest rates currently 4.6% when BoE base rate is 0.25%. That will increase debt for all but the luckiest kids who have a well paid job and don't have to pay stupid rents dictated by our brkken housing policy. Look forward to having your kids at home until you retire.
They do not have to pay back large amounts. It is an affordable amount even at low salaries. Our housing situation, which is totally shit and unacceptable, has nothing to do with loan repayments.
My daughter fortunately has a place with her husband and family, my son rents and cannot afford a mortgage. Even without loan repayments he still could not afford a mortgage. You cannot link the two.
Loan repayments are affordable at all levels, housing is a fucking joke.
But the debt will grow and will be an albatross round the necks of our young adults who will have to pay for the final salary pensions of our public services, social care for parents, and joke projects like Trident renewal, unproven Sizewell C, new Heathrow runway with no improvement in infrastructure and HS2. We are borrowing from their futures. No wonder many are turning to Corbyn, who alas does not understand how Brexit will devestate our economy.
You are equating affordable loan repayments with stuff that does not relate at all.
The debt will never be an albatross because repayments are so low and the debt does not even have to be fully repaid if salaries for the loanee remain low.
As you point out, there is much wrong with this country ... but loan repayments at a low affordable level are not one of the problem issues. I can assure you that my kids do not see it as one of their problems for the future, even on their low salaries.
It's an albatross for the taxpayer (who have to fund the writing off of debt and the student loans system). It's manifestly a poor deal for taxpayers and for students and the whole system would be cheaper and fairer if we just scrapped the whole thing and funded in demand degrees wholesale instead of a failing system that generates thousands of unemployable graduates in worthless disciplines and forces us to recruit heavily from abroad at great expense.
It's an albatross for the taxpayer (who have to fund the writing off of debt and the student loans system). It's manifestly a poor deal for taxpayers and for students and the whole system would be cheaper and fairer if we just scrapped the whole thing and funded in demand degrees wholesale instead of a failing system that generates thousands of unemployable graduates in worthless disciplines and forces us to recruit heavily from abroad at great expense.
I've given my arguments, examples of my kids, and examples of the situation in other successful countries.
Think I'll leave it there as I have no more to say and we will not agree. It was worth discussing though.
Perhaps we should start by investing more in schools, making gcse's and A level actually mean something and the same goes for university. It should be for the best and brightest.
The amount of people who go to university nowadays are thick as shit.
How our system differs to other countries can't be succinctly put but I do think it is rather daft to continue to defend our system as it is failing on every metric. Your example of your own kids failing to pay back their loans only vindicates the fact that the system doesn't work. We need a better system and the better system would mean less fees and more state funding for a fairer and more effective and efficient system.
How our system differs to other countries can't be succinctly put but I do think it is rather daft to continue to defend our system as it is failing on every metric. Your example of your own kids failing to pay back their loans only vindicates the fact that the system doesn't work. We need a better system and the better system would mean less fees and more state funding for a fairer and more effective and efficient system.
As I said, we will not agree and my 'country' issue was not my initial example but yours.
No problem with that, I've given my arguments so have no more to give.
There is far far far more wrong with this country than the issue of affordable loan repayments.
It is an undeniable fact that the take up on university places for poorer familes has plummeted since fees introduced. Let's not forget that this fiasco was introduced by Labour.
@Rob7Lee here is a report that shows that real income has fallen since 2008 in the under 40's, this is a far better measure of pay standards than net income. It might also go some way to explain the effectiveness of Corbyn's anti-elitism/wealth distribution campaigning within that same demographic.
Not sure I agree, I still believe you need to look at net pay (which may still be lower), otherwise you can say if Corbyn had got in but someone on £100k got a 2% pay rise they'd be better off when in reality they would see the money that hits their bank each month decline potentially.
On uni fees and the administration this is no different to all the benefits I've been banging on about, the administration cost must be ridiculous.
Perhaps we should start by investing more in schools, making gcse's and A level actually mean something and the same goes for university. It should be for the best and brightest.
The amount of people who go to university nowadays are thick as shit.
Degrees mean nothing now.
Agree with your first point about the schooling system. There needs to be an overhaul so that the next generation can compete with the rest of the world on the skills needed to help us thrive in the future. It's no different to how English football needs a real change to help us compete on an international level, but that is long term, structural and will take time
Don't agree with your second point. I think people that go to uni are likely to be academically more intelligent, whether that translates to being job ready when they leave is debatable
Seem to recall @Leuth mentioning he had been afforded the best education the country can offer. Can't remember what institutions that was at, seems like a bright bloke though.
Not as smart as my painter decorator mate though lol.
People are smart in different ways - I never went to University, but have no animosity or grudge against those who do. It benefits the country to educate it's people. And employers have been making the same claims about youngsters forever - the fact is - you don't go to bed a 17 year old and wake up an adult - Most if us weren't fully adult in our outlook when we were 18. You mature with experience and most employers that make these stupid comments about the standard of education don't get it!
It's an albatross for the taxpayer (who have to fund the writing off of debt and the student loans system). It's manifestly a poor deal for taxpayers and for students and the whole system would be cheaper and fairer if we just scrapped the whole thing and funded in demand degrees wholesale instead of a failing system that generates thousands of unemployable graduates in worthless disciplines and forces us to recruit heavily from abroad at great expense.
Are you suggesting that Student Loans would exist for just some courses/subjects but not those that are in demand? Or are you suggesting that the numbers that go to university are reduced?
If not how can it cost less if the tax payer picked up the bill for all of it rather than just those that don't earn enough, with out reducing the funding and , presumably, the quality of the education?
I think that is a valid position - in that we look where we have skill shortages and make related courses free. For me, this is an arguable position, although I think we should make education accesable to as many people as possible if we can, and we can. We can find money to bail out bankers, to pay the DUP. Money can be found because there is not a magic money tree, just the means to stimulate which has always been there.
I went to uni, I think that it's only fair that I repay it. I think that the fact that many will not repay it is testament to how well it works and not the other way round... I am repaying my student loan, when I got my first job I repaid £22.50 a month, I now repay £150 a month, while having a shade under double the gross salary, so it rises exponentially. Manageable.
I am a strong believer in that if things are "free" you won't value them.
Unlike the NHS and a lot of other public services, the University system is an investment in an individual that boosts their earning potential. It's not fair that a lad who left school at 16 to go to work should subsidise my ability to earn more than he ever will.
Completely different for nursing, teaching, medicine etc which in my opinion should be completely free for people who take up these vocations.
I went to uni, I think that it's only fair that I repay it. I think that the fact that many will not repay it is testament to how well it works and not the other way round... I am repaying my student loan, when I got my first job I repaid £22.50 a month, I now repay £150 a month, while having a shade under double the gross salary, so it rises exponentially. Manageable.
I am a strong believer in that if things are "free" you won't value them.
Unlike the NHS and a lot of other public services, the University system is an investment in an individual that boosts their earning potential. It's not fair that a lad who left school at 16 to go to work should subsidise my ability to earn more than he ever will.
Completely different for nursing, teaching, medicine etc which in my opinion should be completely free for people who take up these vocations.
I must admit I'm starting to come round to this way of thinking. Spoke to a fair few people involved in widening participation (trying to get those from disadvantaged backgrounds) into uni, and even they agreed. Mind you, I asked if they'd have gone to uni knowing they have insurmountable debt and they couldn't answer. I'm not wholly convinced. I think in principle, if you earn more you pay more is right - but that's what we do with income tax! Also there's the psychological fear of debt especially if you've grown up in a household with no money or spiralling debts - or even never lived in a house where parents paid a mortgage. I can shrug off 100k plus in mortgage, but the idea of half that as a loan frightens me somewhat, even if I don't have to pay it if I'm out of work, as I would a mortgage.
I went to uni, I think that it's only fair that I repay it. I think that the fact that many will not repay it is testament to how well it works and not the other way round... I am repaying my student loan, when I got my first job I repaid £22.50 a month, I now repay £150 a month, while having a shade under double the gross salary, so it rises exponentially. Manageable.
I am a strong believer in that if things are "free" you won't value them.
Unlike the NHS and a lot of other public services, the University system is an investment in an individual that boosts their earning potential. It's not fair that a lad who left school at 16 to go to work should subsidise my ability to earn more than he ever will.
Completely different for nursing, teaching, medicine etc which in my opinion should be completely free for people who take up these vocations.
I must admit I'm starting to come round to this way of thinking. Spoke to a fair few people involved in widening participation (trying to get those from disadvantaged backgrounds) into uni, and even they agreed. Mind you, I asked if they'd have gone to uni knowing they have insurmountable debt and they couldn't answer. I'm not wholly convinced. I think in principle, if you earn more you pay more is right - but that's what we do with income tax! Also there's the psychological fear of debt especially if you've grown up in a household with no money or spiralling debts - or even never lived in a house where parents paid a mortgage. I can shrug off 100k plus in mortgage, but the idea of half that as a loan frightens me somewhat, even if I don't have to pay it if I'm out of work, as I would a mortgage.
My girlfriend comes from a family like what you describe. Although many try to scare the life out of kids screaming about the debt, she understood the way it is repaid and as a consequence went to uni.
I think the vast majority of people put off uni by the debt levels are done so by precisely the kind of people who should be encouraging them to go, but whom generally have a political axe to grind.... Bailiffs are not going to kick your door in over a tenner you owe to the student loans company. Quite simply it is the "friendliest" debt anyone will ever have, to the extent where some people I knew took it and put it in an ISA even though they didn't need it.
People should stop scaremongering about the debt you leave university in. Instead they should educate them in the way its repaid, and if they come from more deprived backgrounds, the grants that are available, as well as the increased earnings potential.
Pre 2012 uni starters start repaying at above £17,755, and £21k for those that started after.
More than fair. Can you think of any of other debts that are that manageable?
Comments
Germany only abolished fees in 2014. One region is now reinstating the fees and it looks like the others will follow very soon.
Singapore has always had fees and no plans for free tuition.
Hasn't harmed them, has it?
*source yougov
My daughter fortunately has a place with her husband and family, my son rents and cannot afford a mortgage. Even without loan repayments he still could not afford a mortgage. You cannot link the two.
Loan repayments are affordable at all levels, housing is a fucking joke.
The debt will never be an albatross because repayments are so low and the debt does not even have to be fully repaid if salaries for the loanee remain low.
As you point out, there is much wrong with this country ... but loan repayments at a low affordable level are not one of the problem issues. I can assure you that my kids do not see it as one of their problems for the future, even on their low salaries.
Think I'll leave it there as I have no more to say and we will not agree. It was worth discussing though.
and flies in the face of what nearly every other comparable country has discovered?
The amount of people who go to university nowadays are thick as shit.
Degrees mean nothing now.
No problem with that, I've given my arguments so have no more to give.
There is far far far more wrong with this country than the issue of affordable loan repayments.
On uni fees and the administration this is no different to all the benefits I've been banging on about, the administration cost must be ridiculous.
Don't agree with your second point. I think people that go to uni are likely to be academically more intelligent, whether that translates to being job ready when they leave is debatable
Your third point very much depends on the degree
Not as smart as my painter decorator mate though lol.
If not how can it cost less if the tax payer picked up the bill for all of it rather than just those that don't earn enough, with out reducing the funding and , presumably, the quality of the education?
I am a strong believer in that if things are "free" you won't value them.
Unlike the NHS and a lot of other public services, the University system is an investment in an individual that boosts their earning potential. It's not fair that a lad who left school at 16 to go to work should subsidise my ability to earn more than he ever will.
Completely different for nursing, teaching, medicine etc which in my opinion should be completely free for people who take up these vocations.
I think the vast majority of people put off uni by the debt levels are done so by precisely the kind of people who should be encouraging them to go, but whom generally have a political axe to grind.... Bailiffs are not going to kick your door in over a tenner you owe to the student loans company. Quite simply it is the "friendliest" debt anyone will ever have, to the extent where some people I knew took it and put it in an ISA even though they didn't need it.
People should stop scaremongering about the debt you leave university in. Instead they should educate them in the way its repaid, and if they come from more deprived backgrounds, the grants that are available, as well as the increased earnings potential.
Pre 2012 uni starters start repaying at above £17,755, and £21k for those that started after.
More than fair. Can you think of any of other debts that are that manageable?