Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
There is evidence that making University tuition free decreases the amount of people going off to further education.
No exorbitant fees means fewer nonsense courses offered by fewer institutions. They're forced to choose the best candidates rather than let everyone in who'll sign up to pay them over 27 grand.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
You seem to be a bit narky about high earners. Some people do get the hump with the city boys who earn the big bucks and spend their Thursday afternoons dining on champagne and oysters, it's understandable. The food bank stats are damning and I don't think they're common knowledge. The problem with today's society is that people find it hard to care about someone they don't know. If I knew a friend that was short of a few quid and couldn't buy their grub of course I'd help them out but if you're talking about Pete from Darlington I'll just shrug my shoulders. I guess you're either that way inclined or not. I'm assuming you donate to charities etc? If so good for you but I guess it's just not where I'm at.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
While we're on the personal, I have a degree but was kicked out of the care system at the age of 18, if there had been tuition fees in those days I wouldn't have stood a chance. So I was fortunate too. I don't think it was ridiculous it cost me nothing, but ridiculous that nowadays my generation has pulled up the ladder for those following on.
It isn't being narky - it is saying somebody on £100k plus can afford to pay a bit more tax. By doing so we should all be grateful for their contribution to a better society.
What is ridiculous is that you almost have to sign up for a degree and 30k of debt nowadays to even be considered for any kind of internship or permanent job. But that's a rant for another time.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
While we're on the personal, I have a degree but was kicked out of the care system at the age of 18, if there had been tuition fees in those days I wouldn't have stood a chance. So I was fortunate too. I don't think it was ridiculous it cost me nothing, but ridiculous that nowadays my generation has pulled up the ladder for those following on.
But how many graduated in your/my day versus today?
I can assure you average intelligence/ability is no higher today (possibly lower).
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
While we're on the personal, I have a degree but was kicked out of the care system at the age of 18, if there had been tuition fees in those days I wouldn't have stood a chance. So I was fortunate too. I don't think it was ridiculous it cost me nothing, but ridiculous that nowadays my generation has pulled up the ladder for those following on.
But how many graduated in your/my day versus today?
I can assure you average intelligence/ability is no higher today (possibly lower).
In my day I think about 12-18% of young people graduated with a degree from University. I am not sure what point you're making here.
Why not wait for a boom period and pay off the deficit then. In the meantime make money work and work for everybody. Let's expand the economy - the bigger the economy, the smaller the debt is as a percentage, even if it is more than it is now!
People are too hung up on the deficit! We are not Greece. We are fine.
why not raise tax to meet the deficit and start paying some back, then any interest payments saved get invested.. wonder what the Math would be..:)
Paying the deficit is so last term.
by Corbyns sums we could do it overnight, right?.. so if we ploughed his proposed increases into the deficit and national debt, how much interest could we save each year to reinvest?
Interest rates are ridiculously low - a basic economics lesson wil tell you that is a good time to borrow. Corbyn doesn't have to pay the deficit off overnight - nobody does. The rule just has to be, pay it off when you can - when the economy is booming - which it will do at some point! It always does!
Why not wait for a boom period and pay off the deficit then. In the meantime make money work and work for everybody. Let's expand the economy - the bigger the economy, the smaller the debt is as a percentage, even if it is more than it is now!
People are too hung up on the deficit! We are not Greece. We are fine.
The USA has had a deficit since the Civil War! It isn't the size of the deficit, but the size of the economy that matters. You should look to reduce it when you can, but the good times are the best times to do this. You only shrink if you restrict growth in tougher times. The reason the deficit is so high is because capitalism had to be saved and the financial institutions had to be bailed out - nothing to do with public services.
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
It isn't being narky - it is saying somebody on £100k plus can afford to pay a bit more tax. By doing so we should all be grateful for their contribution to a better society.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
While we're on the personal, I have a degree but was kicked out of the care system at the age of 18, if there had been tuition fees in those days I wouldn't have stood a chance. So I was fortunate too. I don't think it was ridiculous it cost me nothing, but ridiculous that nowadays my generation has pulled up the ladder for those following on.
But how many graduated in your/my day versus today?
I can assure you average intelligence/ability is no higher today (possibly lower).
In my day I think about 12-18% of young people graduated with a degree from University. I am not sure what point you're making here.
I mean it's much higher today which tells me hundreds of thousands of students are going to university for £9k when they would be better off learning a trade etc..
However it's daft that there isn't more variability in pricing given the difference in quality.
Why not wait for a boom period and pay off the deficit then. In the meantime make money work and work for everybody. Let's expand the economy - the bigger the economy, the smaller the debt is as a percentage, even if it is more than it is now!
People are too hung up on the deficit! We are not Greece. We are fine.
There's no boom time coming for any major economy (too much debt overhang) - now it's payback time.
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
Interest rates are ridiculously low - a basic economics lesson wil tell you that is a good time to borrow. Corbyn doesn't have to pay the deficit off overnight - nobody does. The rule just has to be, pay it off when you can - when the economy is booming - which it will do at some point! It always does!
Basic economics?. What do you think happens when the loans have to be rolled over as the original loans fall due for repayment and interests rates are five times higher? Our current debt repayments are equal to our whole defence spending budget. Your booming economy would be essential just to cover the new interest with luck, forget about repaying the debt. On the other hand your economy might have bombed and interest rates are even higher and we would look remarkably like Greece. Basic economics? More like playing poker but using the next generations poker chips.
Interest rates are ridiculously low - a basic economics lesson wil tell you that is a good time to borrow. Corbyn doesn't have to pay the deficit off overnight - nobody does. The rule just has to be, pay it off when you can - when the economy is booming - which it will do at some point! It always does!
Basic economics?. What do you think happens when the loans have to be rolled over as the original loans fall due for repayment and interests rates are five times higher? Our current debt repayments are equal to our whole defence spending budget. Your booming economy would be essential just to cover the new interest with luck, forget about repaying the debt. On the other hand your economy might have bombed and interest rates are even higher and we would look remarkably like Greece. Basic economics? More like playing poker but using the next generations poker chips.
Agree...
Rates are low in part because there is a credible plan in place to reduce the deficit, thus increasing our long-term credit worthiness.
Clearly there is sufficient demand for Gilts to fund the current deficit (and possibly more) but the bond market is a cruel mistress should we take it for granted.
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
Fair do's. I didn't get a pay rise when my two were born and i don't expect one if I have a third. Which I won't because we can't afford it.
Growth will always be the best way to grow the economy. Wasn't austerity supposed to have ended by now?
Several times by now I believe Mutts but Osborne kept pushing the timeframe back and Hammond has all but dropped it. Sounds like a "credible plan" to me.
Can I just put on record how much I have enjoyed today's interactions?
Lots of good intelligent points from all sides (which made me question my own prejudices) and all delivered with no obvious nastiness - the best of Charlton Life in my view.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
I wouldn't put it past the Tory party to do a deal with Apple whereby parents need to lease MacBooks at 19.99% Apr if they want their kids to be able to use computers in schools
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Nimbus...... you are showing your age young man!
I remember our pc at primary school year 6. Sat in this massive cabinet with something akin to shop window shutters that came down and were locked very securely every afternoon by ms Walsh
Comments
No exorbitant fees means fewer nonsense courses offered by fewer institutions. They're forced to choose the best candidates rather than let everyone in who'll sign up to pay them over 27 grand.
The food bank stats are damning and I don't think they're common knowledge. The problem with today's society is that people find it hard to care about someone they don't know. If I knew a friend that was short of a few quid and couldn't buy their grub of course I'd help them out but if you're talking about Pete from Darlington I'll just shrug my shoulders. I guess you're either that way inclined or not.
I'm assuming you donate to charities etc? If so good for you but I guess it's just not where I'm at.
I can assure you average intelligence/ability is no higher today (possibly lower).
I am not sure what point you're making here.
People are too hung up on the deficit! We are not Greece. We are fine.
I like it.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
However it's daft that there isn't more variability in pricing given the difference in quality.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
Rates are low in part because there is a credible plan in place to reduce the deficit, thus increasing our long-term credit worthiness.
Clearly there is sufficient demand for Gilts to fund the current deficit (and possibly more) but the bond market is a cruel mistress should we take it for granted.
Things may well change after Brexit...
;-)
Lots of good intelligent points from all sides (which made me question my own prejudices) and all delivered with no obvious nastiness - the best of Charlton Life in my view.
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term