My son has nearly 50 grand of uni debt and has worked since graduating but it continues to increase due to interest. He would need to earn 41k per year for it to start to decrease. He was in the first group of 9k fees and it was too late at the time to change plans. Clegg and his ilk are utter cnuts with no redeeming features.
I assume he didn't get a Maths degree then? 3 x £9k is £27k of Uni debt. The other 'debt' is just the cost of living in 21st Century UK (tax free as well).
'Too late' to change plans? What on earth are you on about. Could he not have decided Uni wasn't for him during freshers week?
Blame Clegg for certain things, but not the decisions made by yourself and your family.
The debt also includes the money borrowed for rent and living (something that didn't happen to my generation)
You got free rent and food?
Basically yes, subsidised by holiday work. I had no family support having been in care and in order to get a degree was totally reliant on grants.
So what did your son spend his holiday work money on then? Surely it would have been wise to use it on his day to day Uni living expenses rather than racking up additional debt outside his tuition fees?
It wasn't sufficient, the living grant barely covers rent. If you don't believe me ask a landlord.
I know exactly how much it costs. I have a 19 year old stepson at Uni - he shares those costs with six other students in the rented accommodation he's in.
And he's earning over £2k over Christmas to help subsidise his living expenses whilst he decides he wants to further his education. He chose to study away from home - as I expect your son did.
Your son has £27k of student debt. The rest is just debt, so stop pretending otherwise.
No pretence because in comparison to my own university experience I see it as debt. Why do you want to tell me what to do? Oh, and any idea why the Clegg mob felt the need to apologise?
My son has nearly 50 grand of uni debt and has worked since graduating but it continues to increase due to interest. He would need to earn 41k per year for it to start to decrease. He was in the first group of 9k fees and it was too late at the time to change plans. Clegg and his ilk are utter cnuts with no redeeming features.
I assume he didn't get a Maths degree then? 3 x £9k is £27k of Uni debt. The other 'debt' is just the cost of living in 21st Century UK (tax free as well).
'Too late' to change plans? What on earth are you on about. Could he not have decided Uni wasn't for him during freshers week?
Blame Clegg for certain things, but not the decisions made by yourself and your family.
The debt also includes the money borrowed for rent and living (something that didn't happen to my generation)
You got free rent and food?
Basically yes, subsidised by holiday work. I had no family support having been in care and in order to get a degree was totally reliant on grants.
So what did your son spend his holiday work money on then? Surely it would have been wise to use it on his day to day Uni living expenses rather than racking up additional debt outside his tuition fees?
It went on rent for properties I didn't live in during those holidays.
I also wasn't able to work a full-time holiday job, because I had degree work and research to be getting on with. It's unfortunate though that piano practice (which had to take place during sociable hours) meant I couldn't take more hours at some of my holiday jobs.
Well you are arguing your case better than Seth.
My points are that it was your decision to chose that Uni and that degree - no one forced you into it. You were aware there were costs of doing this but 'only' £27k of your debt is down to Uni tuition fees - which were announced in 2011, before you even applied to University.
The rest of that debt were your living costs - which I assume you are still paying now?
University for the average Jo is one of sacrifices and hardship - it has always been the case. But I bet you don't regret it for one minute.
We all make informed decisions in life - but for Seth to blame Nick Clegg for your £50k (sic) of student debt is just bollocks.
FFS have you been reading my posts? I am blaming Clegg for going back on his word. As a family we have had to swallow the reality of the debt and are doing so.
Clegg presided over Lib Dem’s decimation, but also led them into government for the first time in the history.
Failed to deliver on his tuition fees pledge but delivered a fairer system in terms of what is basically a low level graduate tax.
In terms of pupil premium Clegg and Lib Dem’s has done more for Social Mobility than the majority of those who preceded him and judging but the recent actions of Milburn and the commission all those who followed him.
Clegg rejected a peerage as he didn’t want a state funded job for life, compare that with John Prescott a deputy PM who did bugger all.
If you consider a 9% tax on earnings above £21000 lowlevel, I can see why you and Clegg were so relaxed about a 5% reduction for those earning more than £150k.
You know f-all about me mate so your inference would be wrong, as a comprehensive educated son of low paid public sector workers (social worker and midwife), who worked night shifts stacking shelves every Friday, Saturday and Sunday to fund his education. I was actually more interested in tax relief for the lower paid through the increase in the tax threshold/allowance. The thing which was in the Lib Dem’s manifesto and they delivered.
education costs, living away from home costs imo its not for anyone else other than the parents of the children or the children themselves to cover it either whilst at uni or in the years after that’s just life ,
If I want something I work hard and I get it , If I can’t afford it I don’t get it
The same should stand for uni
Agree entirely. I am responsible for my own debts because of university.
However, the 3x tuition fee rise is effectively a creative way of lumping an extra 9% tax on thousands of people in my generation who decided to attend university. And many of us decided to attend university because we have been told, all our lives, it is the only worthwhile vehicle toward getting a good job and career.
(At this juncture I'd like to point out I went because I loved music, and the career thing was a happy side-effect of pursuing something I loved. I am lucky in that this was the case for me.)
So not only are we now paying for our own debts (fine, of course), but more of our earnings in the long-term are being taken away to pay for other stuff that previous generations fucked up (2007-09 housing crisis, for instance?). Again, I don't mind, but that's because I'm fully aware and very guilty of privilege that has led me to where I am today, but other people were mis-sold "university is necessary for a good job", and are now a bit fucked by what is effectively extra tax because of it.
Nick Clegg was on a proper loser he was never going to be able to fulfill that promise and he suffered for it , tuition fees are about right imo and the way it’s done is now fairer for everyone
You only have to look at what Corbyn spoke about in his manifesto to see it was a pipe dream and weeks later it was a wish not a promise
Nick Clegg went up in my estimations for trying to influence change he was just unable to deliver on it by being so marginalised whilst in the coalition
My son has nearly 50 grand of uni debt and has worked since graduating but it continues to increase due to interest. He would need to earn 41k per year for it to start to decrease. He was in the first group of 9k fees and it was too late at the time to change plans. Clegg and his ilk are utter cnuts with no redeeming features.
I assume he didn't get a Maths degree then? 3 x £9k is £27k of Uni debt. The other 'debt' is just the cost of living in 21st Century UK (tax free as well).
'Too late' to change plans? What on earth are you on about. Could he not have decided Uni wasn't for him during freshers week?
Blame Clegg for certain things, but not the decisions made by yourself and your family.
The debt also includes the money borrowed for rent and living (something that didn't happen to my generation)
You got free rent and food?
Basically yes, subsidised by holiday work. I had no family support having been in care and in order to get a degree was totally reliant on grants.
So what did your son spend his holiday work money on then? Surely it would have been wise to use it on his day to day Uni living expenses rather than racking up additional debt outside his tuition fees?
It went on rent for properties I didn't live in during those holidays.
I also wasn't able to work a full-time holiday job, because I had degree work and research to be getting on with. It's unfortunate though that piano practice (which had to take place during sociable hours) meant I couldn't take more hours at some of my holiday jobs.
Well you are arguing your case better than Seth.
My points are that it was your decision to chose that Uni and that degree - no one forced you into it. You were aware there were costs of doing this but 'only' £27k of your debt is down to Uni tuition fees - which were announced in 2011, before you even applied to University.
The rest of that debt were your living costs - which I assume you are still paying now?
University for the average Jo is one of sacrifices and hardship - it has always been the case. But I bet you don't regret it for one minute.
We all make informed decisions in life - but for Seth to blame Nick Clegg for your £50k (sic) of student debt is just bollocks.
I don't blame Clegg for my own debt, and I doubt Seth does either.
The point he makes is that 1) he didn't stick to his pledge; 2) the debt terms were changed once I already agreed to the initial terms (how that is legal I do not know); and 3) the upshot of said changes has led to a rising amount of debt.
A subtle difference - the debt itself is my problem, but Clegg's lies have led to an exacerbation of it.
Moreover, it was one of his party's two pledges. That one wasn't even stuck to is pretty bad.
And maybe they were hamstrung by being in a coalition - but in that instance, why not form one with the other left of centre party in Labour, which would not have compromised those two pledges anywhere near as much as a LibCon coalition did?
Clegg (rightly or wrongly) might have gone into coalition with Brown. He chose Cameron.
Or he could have brought the government down when it was reducing taxes on the rich (and Mrs Clegg) at the same time as increasing student debt and generally cutting public expenditure and creating austerity i.e doing the opposite of that well known Liberal Keynes would have recommended.
Clegg (rightly or wrongly) might have gone into coalition with Brown. He chose Cameron.
Even with Brown they would have had a minority government.
It was also revealed that Brown only offered a confidence and supply deal rather than coalition, meaning LD MPs would not have entered government.
The reality is the LDs either had to govern with the Tories or force another GE, which almost certainly would have led to them being carved up by a hugely unpopular Labour party and a resurgent Tory party. Either way the tuition fee changes would have eventually gone through as both Labour and the Tories supported the Browne proposals, with or without the LDs.
Do not forget two crucial pieces of LD legislation - the £10k tax free allowance and the same sex marriage bill, both opposed by Tories but secured as part of the coalition.
Choosing brown was never an option let’s not try to rewrite history that man was treacherous individual who was clinging on to a hiding to nothing
Maybe - but stopping hypocrisy and austerity was and Clegg failed to do so. There is a reason why the LIbDems were wiped out at the 2015 election - and it doesn't warrant a knighthood. Don't you believe that the austerity caused by the 2010-15 government was one of the reasons for the Brexit vote and the economic disaster that will result if it is carried through?
You also forget that nearly everyone benefits from the increase in the tax free allowance - but the less well off suffer from public expenditure and benefit cuts while the very well off benefit from the redcuction in the top rate of tax.
What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance. If it makes a difference to making work pay for someone at the bottom end of the income spectrum, I don’t really mind that someone at the top end also benefits. It’s easier to get ‘buy in’ across the political spectrum for these kinds of policies, without the extensive cost burden of means testing.
The notion that taking someone earning minimum wage out of paying any income tax whatsoever is bad because someone earning more also benefits is strange logic.
If you are really concerned about the low paid paying too much taxes it is quite possible to increase the tax free individual allowance by more by increasing the tax rates at higher bands rather than giving the well off the same benefit. I never said taking the low paid out of income tax was bad so my logic is perfectly sound - it is a question of values not logic.
Choosing brown was never an option let’s not try to rewrite history that man was treacherous individual who was clinging on to a hiding to nothing
Maybe - but stopping hypocrisy and austerity was and Clegg failed to do so. There is a reason why the LIbDems were wiped out at the 2015 election - and it doesn't warrant a knighthood. Don't you believe that the austerity caused by the 2010-15 government was one of the reasons for the Brexit vote and the economic disaster that will result if it is carried through?
You also forget that nearly everyone benefits from the increase in the tax free allowance - but the less well off suffer from public expenditure and benefit cuts while the very well off benefit from the redcuction in the top rate of tax.
No I don’t think that the austerity measures was one of the reasons for Brexit look no further than Brown and Blair for that
Cameron made a commitment because it was becoming obvious that it would win votes , votes that will go against labour and for conservatives if it was due to austerity and austerity as many point the finger at the conservative government then how or why would it go in their favour
The damage done or at least perceived to be done at that point by the labour government was huge
I myself had gone from a labour voter under the Blair administration to a Tory by the time brown had done the damage
And I also don’t believe it will be this terrible dark place others seem to believe it will but that’s been done to death
I also don’t think he deserves a knighthood the same way I don’t think he deserves to be panned for trying to make a difference
But for the first time i could remember a politician doing so he put to bed some of his deepest ideologies and see if he could influence from within or at least that is how I saw it
My son has nearly 50 grand of uni debt and has worked since graduating but it continues to increase due to interest. He would need to earn 41k per year for it to start to decrease. He was in the first group of 9k fees and it was too late at the time to change plans. Clegg and his ilk are utter cnuts with no redeeming features.
Did you, or your son, ever believe that the Libs were going to stop University fees?
It is the oldest trick in the book to promise the earth in the event that something outstandingly unlikely happens.
Ever heard anyone say ‘If this happens, I’ll eat my hat!’
He was never going to be able to make the Tories stump up the money to allow 40% of the population to have a three year funded party at University. Back when 5% went it was affordable - now it isn’t.
Your anger reminds me of the chap that comes on here bemoaning a couple of quid that he believes he lost when we cancelled our subscription to the FLi website and CAFC Player. Have another glass of Port and ‘relax’!
They tripled fees at a stroke and now charge over 6% interest.
If you think that's great then fine, but instead you come on Charlton Life to patronise for some reason. With the additional dressing that University Education is only a three year party anyway.
All in the context of quoting my post. Snide behaviour in my opinion, perhaps it is a side effect of Port.
Sorry Seth, I think you misunderstood the tone of my post. It was aimed at being more humerous on the basis that I assumed that you had been drinking calling Clegg a cnut when I pointed out that every politician makes promises that they don’t deliver on and the less likely they are to win the more outrageous those promised becomes.
It is my belief that Corbyn’s promise to refund/wipe off all student debt (or what ever the actual promise was) was also never going to happen. He wanted a large slice of the youth vote and promised them a small fortune in exchange for it. We will never know the truth, but wiping off student debt when we have a growing crises in the NHS was both unlikely and irresponsible.
My comment about three year party I do stand by though. I went to University and while I was there all my peers (those that didn’t go) had full time jobs and received no hand outs (in the form of grants etc.) yet most students are not up at 6:30am and are not out of the house, working or commuting, for twelve hours a day five days a week. By comparison Univeristy is a three year party. Very few Students work through all of their holidays either. Those that do some work don’t end up doing the kind of hours that they’re non-student peers do for 48 weeks of the year. Just for the record I received no grants, when I went, and came out with a small (by comparison) student loan.
The tripling of the fees was not the decision of one man and even if it was it wasn’t Clegg. His crime, which is far from unusual, was to make an outrageous promise to win votes. I didn’t want to sound rude but I don’t know anyone, personally, that believed that the Libs would win nor that if they did they would be able to keep the promise. They were certainly not going to be able to keep it when they were, in reality, just allowed to have some top jobs in exchange for their support to enable Cameron to be PM.
I never meant to insult you Seth, and I’m sure that there have been some other tongue in cheek comments about your Valley Player subscription. You just seemed to take something that was, quite possibly not relevant to Clegg and his potential peerage, and used it to suggest that he wasn’t worthy of it and, for good measure, to call him a cnut at the same time. I think he comes across ok, personally, even though I have no interest in if he gets a peerage or not, but he did make an undeliverable promise that, potentially, destroyed his party for a generation.
I have no axe to grind but I suspect from your son’s posts that he was always going to end up doing the same course, at the same Univerity, and good on him - most people of that age don’t have the passion for a subject like he seems to have.
The increase in fees haven’t changed people’s actions, in the main, as far as I can see - just how much they have ended up owing in the process. Let’s remember than many students will never pay back anything like their total ‘debt’ before it expires so the numbers become a little irrelevant.
Just to be clear I was not patronising you, nor was I intentionally being snide. You are right, though, I might have had a Port to two. It is Christmas, after all!
"What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance."
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
I personally believe you should concentrate on taxing wealth not income.
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
The whole discussion about higher (third level) education is very illuminating. As we enter the cusp of the information age, many acknowledge that we need as many trained graduates as possible to fulfill the vacancies and apply thought together with acquired experience to the challenges of 2025 and beyond.
The biggest toolkit of knowledge and technologies ever assembled by humankind is present and growing rapidly. And if combined with the tremendous marshaling power of liberal western democratic capitalism, unprecedented standards of living in the future are achievable, particularly in the middle class west. But the west must get past the Hobbsian dichotomy between the wealth aggrandizement of the plutocracy and its society-wide enervation of broad-based economic progress through corrupt politics.
So do we want to follow the European model where students pay living costs but see fees of €1K per annum. Or are we so tied to a simplistic and divisive winner takes all mentality that we slavishly follow the US system where universities charge more and more?
Those who believe that only an elite should make the decisions will continue to support the likes of Trump. The irony is that Clegg has not only supported the tripling of tuition fees but has also fast tracked the demise of the centre ground in the UK. Income and wealth inequality has been one result; the other result has been consistent underinvestment in public infrastructure and social capital because government has been the problem. Partly because a progressive income tax imposes costs on the wealthy.
The current tax cuts in the US complete the "revolution" started by George W. Bush with the 2001 tax cuts that cut the taxes on unearned investment income to less than half of that on earned income. Starting in 2018, plutocratic income from all "unearned" sources will be taxed lower than earned income. So not only did Clegg (and Cable) enable cuts in infrastructure funding and corporation taxes but they have paved the way for an even more extreme path as seen across the water.
By taxing wage earners and loading costs on students whilst at the same time reducing tax on the wealthy, what this has done is give the UK electorate a simple choice at the next election - thanks Nick!
"What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance."
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
I personally believe you should concentrate on taxing wealth not income.
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
I am sorry but Clegg supported cuts in benefits and govt spending that have a greater impact on the less well off while waving through a tax reduction for the well off - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal
He also supported tightening the fiscal stance while the economy was in the doldrums - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal - at least since Keynes.
The Govt of which Clegg was deputy leader presided over one of the sharpest increases in inequality of recent times - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal.
As for a wealth tax perhaps you need a lot more thought - my guess is that it is rather easier for the wealthy to evade and avoid than income tax - income has a source that is often easier to identify than financial assets that are rather mobile in this day and age.
"What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance."
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
I personally believe you should concentrate on taxing wealth not income.
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
I am sorry but Clegg supported cuts in benefits and govt spending that have a greater impact on the less well off while waving through a tax reduction for the well off - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal
He also supported tightening the fiscal stance while the economy was in the doldrums - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal - at least since Keynes.
The Govt of which Clegg was deputy leader presided over one of the sharpest increases in inequality of recent times - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal.
As for a wealth tax perhaps you need a lot more thought - my guess is that it is rather easier for the wealthy to evade and avoid than income tax - income has a source that is often easier to identify than financial assets that are rather mobile in this day and age.
Did he really? I doubt it. I think he was making as many policy decisions in the coalition Government as a two year old does in a family home.
I’m quite convinced that he got the title of Deputy Leader, and a couple of press conferences that he was allowed to speak at with Cameron then he was told to f**k off and do as he was told, or f**k off and get out of Govenrment.
Six months after the General election in 2010 it was fairly clear that another election would wipe out the Liberals, almost completely, and would probably have retained a Conservative Government. In any event Clegg couldn’t risk it so he bowed his head and did as he was told.
And I for one believe he made the right decisions for the benefit of the Country as a whole, despite some of those being against his better judgement.
Remember that Clegg's government, no doubt thinking about the country as a whole reduced the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% for those struggling to get by on £150k a year - like Mrs Clegg fro example.
And as a result increased the revenue from that bracket.
The whole discussion about higher (third level) education is very illuminating. As we enter the cusp of the information age, many acknowledge that we need as many trained graduates as possible to fulfill the vacancies and apply thought together with acquired experience to the challenges of 2025 and beyond.
The biggest toolkit of knowledge and technologies ever assembled by humankind is present and growing rapidly. And if combined with the tremendous marshaling power of liberal western democratic capitalism, unprecedented standards of living in the future are achievable, particularly in the middle class west. But the west must get past the Hobbsian dichotomy between the wealth aggrandizement of the plutocracy and its society-wide enervation of broad-based economic progress through corrupt politics.
So do we want to follow the European model where students pay living costs but see fees of €1K per annum. Or are we so tied to a simplistic and divisive winner takes all mentality that we slavishly follow the US system where universities charge more and more?
Those who believe that only an elite should make the decisions will continue to support the likes of Trump. The irony is that Clegg has not only supported the tripling of tuition fees but has also fast tracked the demise of the centre ground in the UK. Income and wealth inequality has been one result; the other result has been consistent underinvestment in public infrastructure and social capital because government has been the problem. Partly because a progressive income tax imposes costs on the wealthy.
The current tax cuts in the US complete the "revolution" started by George W. Bush with the 2001 tax cuts that cut the taxes on unearned investment income to less than half of that on earned income. Starting in 2018, plutocratic income from all "unearned" sources will be taxed lower than earned income. So not only did Clegg (and Cable) enable cuts in infrastructure funding and corporation taxes but they have paved the way for an even more extreme path as seen across the water.
By taxing wage earners and loading costs on students whilst at the same time reducing tax on the wealthy, what this has done is give the UK electorate a simple choice at the next election - thanks Nick!
It's not reducing tax on the wealthy, it was a reduction on income tax at the top rate. Counter-intuitive it may be, but it increased tax revenue to the Treasury.
Let's not forget that it was Blair who introduced tuition fees. Clegg was the minority partner in a coalition, which is a long way from being the government. Whether or not it was right for the LibDems is neither here nor there really, much more important is to consider the alternative.
Under Blair, the number of university places rose exponentially. No government in our history would be able to sustain that under the old system of subsidising tuition in full and giving students grants, at least not without significantly damaging other key services (most likely other areas in education).
To my mind what we have is a system that's workable for all. It's not debt as such, because actually there's no obligation to pay it off if you never earn enough. It's a tax on earnings that are significantly higher for graduates than for those who didn't go through university. That's right isn't it? People taking responsibility for what benefits them primarily? The poorer members of our society shouldn't foot the bill for those of higher earning potential should they? And if you tax higher earners, well effectively that's what you're doing.
The issue is the level of tuition fees. For me there's been a real lack of governance on this, so that the majority of universities apparently cost the same and pay their heads handsome sums. If there was a greater onus on the unis to demonstrate the value for your hard-earned then we might find a greater balance for all.
The Lib Dem’s were the junior partner in a coalition, Labour voted through the coalitions Welfare Cap in the Commons.
What however is truly frightening is the level of support for the benefit cap from across the population, having got hold of the panel data from YouGov and Populous around questions on the benefit cap, it stood out by a mile as one of the most popular coalition policies.
If you have the means it’s possible to evade either wealth and income tax, hence why high earning media celebrities get paid to their production companies as opposed to as an individual etc.
Yes it’s hard to tax wealth, but It’s something I wish our politicians would go after, through top end inheritance/capital gains, Mansion tax etc.
My son has nearly 50 grand of uni debt and has worked since graduating but it continues to increase due to interest. He would need to earn 41k per year for it to start to decrease. He was in the first group of 9k fees and it was too late at the time to change plans. Clegg and his ilk are utter cnuts with no redeeming features.
Did you, or your son, ever believe that the Libs were going to stop University fees?
It is the oldest trick in the book to promise the earth in the event that something outstandingly unlikely happens.
Ever heard anyone say ‘If this happens, I’ll eat my hat!’
He was never going to be able to make the Tories stump up the money to allow 40% of the population to have a three year funded party at University. Back when 5% went it was affordable - now it isn’t.
Your anger reminds me of the chap that comes on here bemoaning a couple of quid that he believes he lost when we cancelled our subscription to the FLi website and CAFC Player. Have another glass of Port and ‘relax’!
They tripled fees at a stroke and now charge over 6% interest.
If you think that's great then fine, but instead you come on Charlton Life to patronise for some reason. With the additional dressing that University Education is only a three year party anyway.
All in the context of quoting my post. Snide behaviour in my opinion, perhaps it is a side effect of Port.
Sorry Seth, I think you misunderstood the tone of my post. It was aimed at being more humerous on the basis that I assumed that you had been drinking calling Clegg a cnut when I pointed out that every politician makes promises that they don’t deliver on and the less likely they are to win the more outrageous those promised becomes.
It is my belief that Corbyn’s promise to refund/wipe off all student debt (or what ever the actual promise was) was also never going to happen. He wanted a large slice of the youth vote and promised them a small fortune in exchange for it. We will never know the truth, but wiping off student debt when we have a growing crises in the NHS was both unlikely and irresponsible.
My comment about three year party I do stand by though. I went to University and while I was there all my peers (those that didn’t go) had full time jobs and received no hand outs (in the form of grants etc.) yet most students are not up at 6:30am and are not out of the house, working or commuting, for twelve hours a day five days a week. By comparison Univeristy is a three year party. Very few Students work through all of their holidays either. Those that do some work don’t end up doing the kind of hours that they’re non-student peers do for 48 weeks of the year. Just for the record I received no grants, when I went, and came out with a small (by comparison) student loan.
The tripling of the fees was not the decision of one man and even if it was it wasn’t Clegg. His crime, which is far from unusual, was to make an outrageous promise to win votes. I didn’t want to sound rude but I don’t know anyone, personally, that believed that the Libs would win nor that if they did they would be able to keep the promise. They were certainly not going to be able to keep it when they were, in reality, just allowed to have some top jobs in exchange for their support to enable Cameron to be PM.
I never meant to insult you Seth, and I’m sure that there have been some other tongue in cheek comments about your Valley Player subscription. You just seemed to take something that was, quite possibly not relevant to Clegg and his potential peerage, and used it to suggest that he wasn’t worthy of it and, for good measure, to call him a cnut at the same time. I think he comes across ok, personally, even though I have no interest in if he gets a peerage or not, but he did make an undeliverable promise that, potentially, destroyed his party for a generation.
I have no axe to grind but I suspect from your son’s posts that he was always going to end up doing the same course, at the same Univerity, and good on him - most people of that age don’t have the passion for a subject like he seems to have.
The increase in fees haven’t changed people’s actions, in the main, as far as I can see - just how much they have ended up owing in the process. Let’s remember than many students will never pay back anything like their total ‘debt’ before it expires so the numbers become a little irrelevant.
Just to be clear I was not patronising you, nor was I intentionally being snide. You are right, though, I might have had a Port to two. It is Christmas, after all!
And I for one believe he made the right decisions for the benefit of the Country as a whole, despite some of those being against his better judgement.
Remember that Clegg's government, no doubt thinking about the country as a whole reduced the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% for those struggling to get by on £150k a year - like Mrs Clegg fro example.
And as a result increased the revenue from that bracket.
The whole discussion about higher (third level) education is very illuminating. As we enter the cusp of the information age, many acknowledge that we need as many trained graduates as possible to fulfill the vacancies and apply thought together with acquired experience to the challenges of 2025 and beyond.
The biggest toolkit of knowledge and technologies ever assembled by humankind is present and growing rapidly. And if combined with the tremendous marshaling power of liberal western democratic capitalism, unprecedented standards of living in the future are achievable, particularly in the middle class west. But the west must get past the Hobbsian dichotomy between the wealth aggrandizement of the plutocracy and its society-wide enervation of broad-based economic progress through corrupt politics.
So do we want to follow the European model where students pay living costs but see fees of €1K per annum. Or are we so tied to a simplistic and divisive winner takes all mentality that we slavishly follow the US system where universities charge more and more?
Those who believe that only an elite should make the decisions will continue to support the likes of Trump. The irony is that Clegg has not only supported the tripling of tuition fees but has also fast tracked the demise of the centre ground in the UK. Income and wealth inequality has been one result; the other result has been consistent underinvestment in public infrastructure and social capital because government has been the problem. Partly because a progressive income tax imposes costs on the wealthy.
The current tax cuts in the US complete the "revolution" started by George W. Bush with the 2001 tax cuts that cut the taxes on unearned investment income to less than half of that on earned income. Starting in 2018, plutocratic income from all "unearned" sources will be taxed lower than earned income. So not only did Clegg (and Cable) enable cuts in infrastructure funding and corporation taxes but they have paved the way for an even more extreme path as seen across the water.
By taxing wage earners and loading costs on students whilst at the same time reducing tax on the wealthy, what this has done is give the UK electorate a simple choice at the next election - thanks Nick!
It's not reducing tax on the wealthy, it was a reduction on income tax at the top rate. Counter-intuitive it may be, but it increased tax revenue to the Treasury.
Let's not forget that it was Blair who introduced tuition fees. Clegg was the minority partner in a coalition, which is a long way from being the government. Whether or not it was right for the LibDems is neither here nor there really, much more important is to consider the alternative.
Under Blair, the number of university places rose exponentially. No government in our history would be able to sustain that under the old system of subsidising tuition in full and giving students grants, at least not without significantly damaging other key services (most likely other areas in education).
To my mind what we have is a system that's workable for all. It's not debt as such, because actually there's no obligation to pay it off if you never earn enough. It's a tax on earnings that are significantly higher for graduates than for those who didn't go through university. That's right isn't it? People taking responsibility for what benefits them primarily? The poorer members of our society shouldn't foot the bill for those of higher earning potential should they? And if you tax higher earners, well effectively that's what you're doing.
The issue is the level of tuition fees. For me there's been a real lack of governance on this, so that the majority of universities apparently cost the same and pay their heads handsome sums. If there was a greater onus on the unis to demonstrate the value for your hard-earned then we might find a greater balance for all.
Perhaps you should understand why it is counter-intuitive - something to do with tax evasion and avoidance not being dealt with properly, the economic evidence for the well off generating less income because of the substitution effect of higher taxes is pretty weak when compared with that for the income effect.
"What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance."
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
I personally believe you should concentrate on taxing wealth not income.
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
I am sorry but Clegg supported cuts in benefits and govt spending that have a greater impact on the less well off while waving through a tax reduction for the well off - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal
He also supported tightening the fiscal stance while the economy was in the doldrums - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal - at least since Keynes.
The Govt of which Clegg was deputy leader presided over one of the sharpest increases in inequality of recent times - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal.
As for a wealth tax perhaps you need a lot more thought - my guess is that it is rather easier for the wealthy to evade and avoid than income tax - income has a source that is often easier to identify than financial assets that are rather mobile in this day and age.
Did he really? I doubt it. I think he was making as many policy decisions in the coalition Government as a two year old does in a family home.
I’m quite convinced that he got the title of Deputy Leader, and a couple of press conferences that he was allowed to speak at with Cameron then he was told to f**k off and do as he was told, or f**k off and get out of Govenrment.
Six months after the General election in 2010 it was fairly clear that another election would wipe out the Liberals, almost completely, and would probably have retained a Conservative Government. In any event Clegg couldn’t risk it so he bowed his head and did as he was told.
A man with a backbone, and one deserving of a knighthood would have objected to be treated in such a fashion - that he didn't speaks volumes for him I'm afraid. RD likes yes men as well and look where that has got Charlton - Chrissy Powell and Curbs are not yes men and are far more worthy recipients of a knighthood.
Comments
Why do you want to tell me what to do?
Oh, and any idea why the Clegg mob felt the need to apologise?
As a family we have had to swallow the reality of the debt and are doing so.
However, the 3x tuition fee rise is effectively a creative way of lumping an extra 9% tax on thousands of people in my generation who decided to attend university. And many of us decided to attend university because we have been told, all our lives, it is the only worthwhile vehicle toward getting a good job and career.
(At this juncture I'd like to point out I went because I loved music, and the career thing was a happy side-effect of pursuing something I loved. I am lucky in that this was the case for me.)
So not only are we now paying for our own debts (fine, of course), but more of our earnings in the long-term are being taken away to pay for other stuff that previous generations fucked up (2007-09 housing crisis, for instance?). Again, I don't mind, but that's because I'm fully aware and very guilty of privilege that has led me to where I am today, but other people were mis-sold "university is necessary for a good job", and are now a bit fucked by what is effectively extra tax because of it.
Nick Clegg was on a proper loser he was never going to be able to fulfill that promise and he suffered for it , tuition fees are about right imo and the way it’s done is now fairer for everyone
You only have to look at what Corbyn spoke about in his manifesto to see it was a pipe dream and weeks later it was a wish not a promise
Nick Clegg went up in my estimations for trying to influence change he was just unable to deliver on it by being so marginalised whilst in the coalition
The point he makes is that 1) he didn't stick to his pledge; 2) the debt terms were changed once I already agreed to the initial terms (how that is legal I do not know); and 3) the upshot of said changes has led to a rising amount of debt.
A subtle difference - the debt itself is my problem, but Clegg's lies have led to an exacerbation of it.
Moreover, it was one of his party's two pledges. That one wasn't even stuck to is pretty bad.
And maybe they were hamstrung by being in a coalition - but in that instance, why not form one with the other left of centre party in Labour, which would not have compromised those two pledges anywhere near as much as a LibCon coalition did?
It was also revealed that Brown only offered a confidence and supply deal rather than coalition, meaning LD MPs would not have entered government.
The reality is the LDs either had to govern with the Tories or force another GE, which almost certainly would have led to them being carved up by a hugely unpopular Labour party and a resurgent Tory party. Either way the tuition fee changes would have eventually gone through as both Labour and the Tories supported the Browne proposals, with or without the LDs.
Do not forget two crucial pieces of LD legislation - the £10k tax free allowance and the same sex marriage bill, both opposed by Tories but secured as part of the coalition.
You also forget that nearly everyone benefits from the increase in the tax free allowance - but the less well off suffer from public expenditure and benefit cuts while the very well off benefit from the redcuction in the top rate of tax.
The notion that taking someone earning minimum wage out of paying any income tax whatsoever is bad because someone earning more also benefits is strange logic.
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
Cameron made a commitment because it was becoming obvious that it would win votes , votes that will go against labour and for conservatives if it was due to austerity and austerity as many point the finger at the conservative government then how or why would it go in their favour
The damage done or at least perceived to be done at that point by the labour government was huge
I myself had gone from a labour voter under the Blair administration to a Tory by the time brown had done the damage
And I also don’t believe it will be this terrible dark place others seem to believe it will but that’s been done to death
I also don’t think he deserves a knighthood the same way I don’t think he deserves to be panned for trying to make a difference
But for the first time i could remember a politician doing so he put to bed some of his deepest ideologies and see if he could influence from within or at least that is how I saw it
It is my belief that Corbyn’s promise to refund/wipe off all student debt (or what ever the actual promise was) was also never going to happen. He wanted a large slice of the youth vote and promised them a small fortune in exchange for it. We will never know the truth, but wiping off student debt when we have a growing crises in the NHS was both unlikely and irresponsible.
My comment about three year party I do stand by though. I went to University and while I was there all my peers (those that didn’t go) had full time jobs and received no hand outs (in the form of grants etc.) yet most students are not up at 6:30am and are not out of the house, working or commuting, for twelve hours a day five days a week. By comparison Univeristy is a three year party. Very few Students work through all of their holidays either. Those that do some work don’t end up doing the kind of hours that they’re non-student peers do for 48 weeks of the year. Just for the record I received no grants, when I went, and came out with a small (by comparison) student loan.
The tripling of the fees was not the decision of one man and even if it was it wasn’t Clegg. His crime, which is far from unusual, was to make an outrageous promise to win votes. I didn’t want to sound rude but I don’t know anyone, personally, that believed that the Libs would win nor that if they did they would be able to keep the promise. They were certainly not going to be able to keep it when they were, in reality, just allowed to have some top jobs in exchange for their support to enable Cameron to be PM.
I never meant to insult you Seth, and I’m sure that there have been some other tongue in cheek comments about your Valley Player subscription. You just seemed to take something that was, quite possibly not relevant to Clegg and his potential peerage, and used it to suggest that he wasn’t worthy of it and, for good measure, to call him a cnut at the same time. I think he comes across ok, personally, even though I have no interest in if he gets a peerage or not, but he did make an undeliverable promise that, potentially, destroyed his party for a generation.
I have no axe to grind but I suspect from your son’s posts that he was always going to end up doing the same course, at the same Univerity, and good on him - most people of that age don’t have the passion for a subject like he seems to have.
The increase in fees haven’t changed people’s actions, in the main, as far as I can see - just how much they have ended up owing in the process. Let’s remember than many students will never pay back anything like their total ‘debt’ before it expires so the numbers become a little irrelevant.
Just to be clear I was not patronising you, nor was I intentionally being snide. You are right, though, I might have had a Port to two. It is Christmas, after all!
If you were offended then I apologise.
Once in power it's a different ball game
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
The biggest toolkit of knowledge and technologies ever assembled by humankind is present and growing rapidly. And if combined with the tremendous marshaling power of liberal western democratic capitalism, unprecedented standards of living in the future are achievable, particularly in the middle class west. But the west must get past the Hobbsian dichotomy between the wealth aggrandizement of the plutocracy and its society-wide enervation of broad-based economic progress through corrupt politics.
So do we want to follow the European model where students pay living costs but see fees of €1K per annum. Or are we so tied to a simplistic and divisive winner takes all mentality that we slavishly follow the US system where universities charge more and more?
Those who believe that only an elite should make the decisions will continue to support the likes of Trump. The irony is that Clegg has not only supported the tripling of tuition fees but has also fast tracked the demise of the centre ground in the UK. Income and wealth inequality has been one result; the other result has been consistent underinvestment in public infrastructure and social capital because government has been the problem. Partly because a progressive income tax imposes costs on the wealthy.
The current tax cuts in the US complete the "revolution" started by George W. Bush with the 2001 tax cuts that cut the taxes on unearned investment income to less than half of that on earned income. Starting in 2018, plutocratic income from all "unearned" sources will be taxed lower than earned income. So not only did Clegg (and Cable) enable cuts in infrastructure funding and corporation taxes but they have paved the way for an even more extreme path as seen across the water.
By taxing wage earners and loading costs on students whilst at the same time reducing tax on the wealthy, what this has done is give the UK electorate a simple choice at the next election - thanks Nick!
He also supported tightening the fiscal stance while the economy was in the doldrums - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal - at least since Keynes.
The Govt of which Clegg was deputy leader presided over one of the sharpest increases in inequality of recent times - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal.
As for a wealth tax perhaps you need a lot more thought - my guess is that it is rather easier for the wealthy to evade and avoid than income tax - income has a source that is often easier to identify than financial assets that are rather mobile in this day and age.
I’m quite convinced that he got the title of Deputy Leader, and a couple of press conferences that he was allowed to speak at with Cameron then he was told to f**k off and do as he was told, or f**k off and get out of Govenrment.
Six months after the General election in 2010 it was fairly clear that another election would wipe out the Liberals, almost completely, and would probably have retained a Conservative Government. In any event Clegg couldn’t risk it so he bowed his head and did as he was told.
And I for one believe he made the right decisions for the benefit of the Country as a whole, despite some of those being against his better judgement.
Remember that Clegg's government, no doubt thinking about the country as a whole reduced the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% for those struggling to get by on £150k a year - like Mrs Clegg fro example.
And as a result increased the revenue from that bracket.
Let's not forget that it was Blair who introduced tuition fees. Clegg was the minority partner in a coalition, which is a long way from being the government. Whether or not it was right for the LibDems is neither here nor there really, much more important is to consider the alternative.
Under Blair, the number of university places rose exponentially. No government in our history would be able to sustain that under the old system of subsidising tuition in full and giving students grants, at least not without significantly damaging other key services (most likely other areas in education).
To my mind what we have is a system that's workable for all. It's not debt as such, because actually there's no obligation to pay it off if you never earn enough. It's a tax on earnings that are significantly higher for graduates than for those who didn't go through university. That's right isn't it? People taking responsibility for what benefits them primarily? The poorer members of our society shouldn't foot the bill for those of higher earning potential should they? And if you tax higher earners, well effectively that's what you're doing.
The issue is the level of tuition fees. For me there's been a real lack of governance on this, so that the majority of universities apparently cost the same and pay their heads handsome sums. If there was a greater onus on the unis to demonstrate the value for your hard-earned then we might find a greater balance for all.
What however is truly frightening is the level of support for the benefit cap from across the population, having got hold of the panel data from YouGov and Populous around questions on the benefit cap, it stood out by a mile as one of the most popular coalition policies.
If you have the means it’s possible to evade either wealth and income tax, hence why high earning media celebrities get paid to their production companies as opposed to as an individual etc.
Yes it’s hard to tax wealth, but It’s something I wish our politicians would go after, through top end inheritance/capital gains, Mansion tax etc.
And as a result increased the revenue from that bracket.
Perhaps you should understand why it is counter-intuitive - something to do with tax evasion and avoidance not being dealt with properly, the economic evidence for the well off generating less income because of the substitution effect of higher taxes is pretty weak when compared with that for the income effect.