Scotland's Uni Funding System Faces Legal Challenge

[alx]

Kick a brick.

[Woodstock Jag]

Point taken mate but we're dealing with a neo-liberal public schoolboy who claims to know how the real World runs.

 

Neo-liberal? Of course I am. How that is supposed to impair knowledge or understanding of how this magical "real world" works is bemusing.

 

Public schoolboy? Again, certainly, I attended an independent school for secondary education, but I was actually state educated throughout primary. I was extremely lucky. I was also only able to go to an independent school because of a bursary funded by philanthropists. You know, those socially minded products of the success of the free market. It's thanks to them that I got a first class education when I'd have otherwise gone to the local comprehensive which wouldn't even have allowed me to take all of the subjects I wanted to.

 

How this supposedly impairs my ability to tell how this magical "real world" operates as well is bemusing. Newsflash Meister. They're part of the real world. Now kindly stick your inverted snobbery up your arse.

 

But feel free to get involved... I've tried and am getting seriously fed up. As I read it, power is money and money should be worshiped. If you don't have it - to buy education, privilege, property and whatever else you need to have a spiffing life - then you're really shouldn't express an opinion. But if you do, it will just be dissected and shot down. Give it a go, sit back and watch the response...

 

And the award for misrepresenting what is said the most goes too.... Meister Jag.

 

Ach it just difficult to have a proper debate in this kinda setting, intricate yet important points are either missed or not easy to explain in print. Which then gives Woody, who appears to enjoy debating on this platform, the tools to attempt to patronise people and get his views across in a way that suits him. Nothing personal WJ, just how I see it.

 

I resent that. It's not that I "enjoy debating on this platform" and I'm certainly not intentionally patronising people (I get enough of that in reverse with the million and one ad hominems about my background and the completely false rubbish about me glorifying money and loving tax cheats). What I resent is that people don't understand very basic facts of policy and the way governments fund things like University and then have the audacity to make false moral assertions at people like me when we do.

 

Nobody seriously thinks of returning to the socialist systems of the Soviet type - not only because of their political faults, but also because of the increasing sluggishness and inefficiency of their economies

 

But also because of their basic human faults by suppressing innovation, enterprise and freedom.

 

- though this should not lead us to underestimate their impressive social and educational achievements.

 

Oh look guys, the unemployment rate is really low and the literacy rate is quite high. Never mind the thousands of people being marched across Siberia to their deaths. Go socialism!

 

On the other hand, until the global free market imploded, even the social-democratic or other moderate left parties in the rich countries of northern capitalism had committed themselves more and more to the success of free-market capitalism. Indeed, between the fall of the USSR and now I can think of no such party or leader denouncing capitalism as unacceptable. None were more committed to it than New Labour - who I blame for much of what has gone wrong. In their economic policies both Blair and Brown could be described without real exaggeration as Thatcher in trousers.

 

The global free market did not implode. It's still very much in tact. It did exactly what it said it would do. Boom and bust. That's how it rolls. No one ever claimed it would do anything to the contrary. What politicians thought they could do was use government intervention to manipulate it: be it through interest rates, the supply of money, sovereign debt, PFI spending etc, to make people feel richer by giving them stuff without taxing them. What they were really doing is borrowing against the future generations. That's not free market capitalism. That's the very croneyism that I hate every bit as much as you do.

 

The basic Labour idea since probably the 1950s was that socialism was unnecessary; this was because a capitalist system could be relied on to flourish and to generate more wealth than any other. This is where people like me take issue with the so-called people's party. In truth they have failed us as much as anyone. They failed to try to change society for the people who gave them power.

 

The liberal's response to your world-view is that yes, of course society need to change. But you want it to punish success to create absolute equality of outcome as an end in itself. We see the role of society as something much more subtle: to make sure that as few as possible suffer so that the best rise to the top. Suddenly society is an enabler. A means to a much more nuanced end. Socialism is driven by envy, revenge and homogenisation. Liberalism is driven by justice, rights and responsibilities.

 

When in power all a socialist government had to do was to ensure that there was a degree of equitable wealth distribution. But since the 1970s the accelerating surge of globalisation made this more and more difficult and fatally undermined the traditional basis of the Labour party. Many in the 1980s agreed that if the ship of Labour was not to founder, which was a real possibility at the time, it would have to be refitted. (You may recall that in the UK the Tories seemed to be re-elected at will and labour couldn't find a way back into power.)

 

Globalisation is a good thing. The amazing thing about socialists is that they bleat on about wealth distribution, but they ignore the fact that if developed countries don't participate in globalisation, all you're doing is distributing ever less wealth among the richest nations. Free trade has brought millions out of chronic poverty in India. Their absolute gain has not even been to the expense of others. By increasing their actual purchasing power through the removal of trade barriers, the cost of food has fallen, the value of their labour has increased and their lot has improved whilst also making companies here in Britain a lot of money that has then benefited the UK economy after countless bits of taxation and redistribution has taken place.

 

Globalisation has made stuff cheaper for the lowest earners in the UK. It has improved the lot of those Meister Jag claims to represent. The simple truth is that for all its faults, the free market system is the best system we've got. It makes more stuff and more efficiently and everyone gets more cake; just not necessarily as big a proportion of the slices.

 

However - and I know I'm coming across as a boring c*** (but this wee s**** needs to be told), the ship was not refitted. Under the impact of what it saw as the Thatcherite economic revival, New Labour swallowed the ideology, or rather the theology, of global free-market fundamentalism whole. Britain deregulated its markets, sold its industries to the highest bidder, stopped making things to export (unlike Germany, France and Switzerland) and put its money on becoming the global centre of financial services and therefore a paradise for zillionaire money-launderers.

 

You're right here, to a point. We did stop making stuff. And you know what that turned us into? A global parasite. Embracing the free market does not mean abandoning the responsibility of having something real by means of economic output. But equally, selling off state-owned industry doesn't mean you stop making something. It just means a private company starts making it instead. And if they can do it more cheaply somewhere else, good for them. That means the product gets sold more cheaply to UK consumers. In the mean time, it means that people here have to learn to take responsibility for themselves. They have no inherent right to a job. They need to be enterprising. They need to come up with something better than what people in other countries can offer. But instead people sat on their arses complaining about the decline of industries that were losing money in a society where the government were taxing 95% of some people's incomes. Is it any wonder they ran for the hills?

 

The tax-avoiding crooks I keep going on about.

 

Again with the word-choice. Tax AVOIDERS are not crooks. Tax EVADERS are.

 

That is why the impact of the world crisis on the pound and the British economy today is probably more catastrophic than on any other major western economy - and full recovery may well be harder if not impossible. (Woody, you'll no doubt disagree!)

 

Oh our recovery will be more difficult. Because our government manipulated our markets more than others and put all their eggs in the basket case of the financial sector. As Nick Clegg often describes it, we need to fundamentally rewire our economy so that it's self-sustainable. Instead of relying on London's financial service hub to create all the wealth and redistribute it to basket-cases across the country, we need to make it cheap for companies to set up shop and make stuff in other parts of the country, in so doing creating jobs and export markets. That means doing things like cutting business taxes, simplifying regulations that they waste money complying with, and getting government to make interest rates reflect the real cost of borrowing so we don't get another housing boom and bust. None of it requires state socialism.

 

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think we're all f***** and the mob that are in charge (Woody's mates) are using the state of the economy as a convenient excuse to boot ordinary people in the stones while slashing public expenditure and hammering the public sector - education, social work, public works, health etc. They are hell-bent and intent on preserving structures of inequality and it is fair to say that even Thatcherism never went this far.

 

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

[Steven H]

 

I resent that. It's not that I "enjoy debating on this platform" and I'm certainly not intentionally patronising people (I get enough of that in reverse with the million and one ad hominems about my background and the completely false rubbish about me glorifying money and loving tax cheats). What I resent is that people don't understand very basic facts of policy and the way governments fund things like University and then have the audacity to make false moral assertions at people like me when we do.

 

 

And therein lies part of the problem Im talking about. You assume that I don't know the basic facts of policy regarding to University funding. Yes there will be huge holes in my knowledge but on the main point you are making I understand that people pay back there fees/loans only after make a salary of X amount...regardless of whether you study in England or Scotland? Is that incorrect? You also insinuated I didnt knwo what a quota is before trying to tell what one actually is by taking it out of the context I was using it. You then go off into a big response (valid or not) when, in a face to face debate for example, I would have corrected you on these inaccuraces (and you would have done the same for me I presume).

 

Resent it all you want, and I'm not condoning the jibes you get about your background etc, and haven't given you any myself, but you do come across as patronising in several of your responses in debates like this (intentionally or not) and that is, imo, a direct result of the platform on which we are having the debate.

 

One thing that confuses me tho, when you talk about it not mattering how much student fees are, because only those earning big salaries will pay (or words to that effect), what does that actually mean. For example, if I study for 4 years in a Scottish University and pay £1700 a year in fees (which I think it was for my course) and borrow £18000 in student loans, is it not the case that I will pay back £24800 plus a modest level of interest? Assuming of course I am earning enough of a salary to do so. Is it also not the case that if I am earning in excess of the minimum salary to qualify (£21k p/a right?) then my payments will increase in the same way as my income tax and NI payments increase?

[Woodstock Jag]

And therein lies part of the problem Im talking about. You assume that I don't know the basic facts of policy regarding to University funding. Yes there will be huge holes in my knowledge but on the main point you are making I understand that people pay back there fees/loans only after make a salary of X amount...regardless of whether you study in England or Scotland? Is that incorrect? You also insinuated I didnt knwo what a quota is before trying to tell what one actually is by taking it out of the context I was using it.

 

Well first up you did misunderstand the system. That you get that people make a contribution based on graduate earnings is going completely in the face of your questions about why the English fee level was so much higher. The fee level doesn't mean anything. I'd been saying that several times before that. If you'd understood that properly you'd know that it's completely meaningless that the Scottish fee level is £1820 whilst the English fee cap is at £9000. What matters is what people actually pay back. In Scotland they decided that for every type of student except English and non-EU students, the Scottish taxpayer would foot the bill in its entirety for undergraduates. Down south, they decided that graduates would foot most of the bill.

 

You said earlier that these changes in England would make it more difficult for those from less-well-off backgrounds to go to University. This is wrong! It doesn't matter if you're the child of a millionaire or the child of a binman: you only pay in proportion to your own subsequent success! In England under the new scheme people will only start paying anything when they're earning over £21k. Before it was £15k. That means that the poorest often won't pay much if anything back, and if they do, they'll be paying back much smaller amounts in any given month, making it easier to build up savings in the early years after graduation.

 

In other words, the new system makes it EASIER for people from poor backgrounds to get to Uni. The increase in means tested grants down south as part of the big package and also extending the student loans facility to part time students is a massive step forward for young people who for whatever reason would not otherwise be able to go to university for other financial reasons.

 

If you really understand the system, I'd ask why you made such a simple error?

 

As for the quotas, I didn't take you out of context. A quota is a quota is a quota. Quotas by definition serve to exclude people who would be more deserving on a case by case basis in favour of those who get in for no other reason than to meet the quota. Quotas are definitionally unfair. They mask rather than tackle the inequalities that get you there in the first place.

 

You then go off into a big response (valid or not) when, in a face to face debate for example, I would have corrected you on these inaccuraces (and you would have done the same for me I presume).

 

But nothing I've said is inaccurate. The reason the response is long is because having tried to state things really simply early on, people keep perpetuating misconceptions. I therefore feel the need to spell it out sentence by sentence in the vain hope they might actually follow it and work out where they're going wrong.

 

Resent it all you want, and I'm not condoning the jibes you get about your background etc, and haven't given you any myself, but you do come across as patronising in several of your responses in debates like this (intentionally or not) and that is, imo, a direct result of the platform on which we are having the debate.

 

By patronising, you mean right.

 

One thing that confuses me tho, when you talk about it not mattering how much student fees are, because only those earning big salaries will pay (or words to that effect), what does that actually mean. For example, if I study for 4 years in a Scottish University and pay £1700 a year in fees (which I think it was for my course) and borrow £18000 in student loans, is it not the case that I will pay back £24800 plus a modest level of interest? Assuming of course I am earning enough of a salary to do so. Is it also not the case that if I am earning in excess of the minimum salary to qualify (£21k p/a right?) then my payments will increase in the same way as my income tax and NI payments increase?

 

There are a number of things that are important in all of this.

 

First of all, yes, the student fee affects the "notional" amount that you owe. However because of the actual rate at which the government are asking people to repay it, almost no one will actually pay the full amount back, because after 30 years the government down south will write it off.

 

Secondly, it behaves exactly like a graduate income tax. The more you earn the more you pay back. If you earn over £21k you pay 9 pence in every pound over that back to the student loans company. Unless someone earns over £35k every year for 30 years (adjusted for inflation) there is absolutely no chance that these contributions will mean they pay it all back. In other words, only those that subsequently go on to become very rich will pay more than they do under the current system. The payments are spread over a longer time, made over a higher initial threshold (under the old English system they had to start paying back after they were on £15kpa) so according to the calculations made by the IFS, the lowest 25% of graduates will pay less through the loans system for their education than they did in the past.

 

This is why I didn't understand why you were saying that the Scottish system was good but the English system was excluding the poor. Under both systems the poor don't pay anything, or pay very little. The only difference is under the English system, the rich graduates pay a LOT while the rest of the bill in Scotland is picked up by the ordinary taxpayer instead, which includes over half the country which never went to University.

 

If I come across as patronising, it's because I really care about these issues and I really hate it when people form views based on misinformation and misconceptions about how these systems work in practice. If someone turns around to me and says "I think it's fair that people who don't get a University education pay for those who do" then I can respect that. Fundamentally disagree with it; but respect it nonetheless. When people tell me that the English system saddles graduates with debt, excludes the poor from University education and that the changes will "treble" the cost of education for English students it makes me really angry, because these assertions simply aren't true.

[jaggybunnet]

Well first up you did misunderstand the system. That you get that people make a contribution based on graduate earnings is going completely in the face of your questions about why the English fee level was so much higher. The fee level doesn't mean anything. I'd been saying that several times before that. If you'd understood that properly you'd know that it's completely meaningless that the Scottish fee level is £1820 whilst the English fee cap is at £9000. What matters is what people actually pay back. In Scotland they decided that for every type of student except English and non-EU students, the Scottish taxpayer would foot the bill in its entirety for undergraduates. Down south, they decided that graduates would foot most of the bill.

 

You said earlier that these changes in England would make it more difficult for those from less-well-off backgrounds to go to University. This is wrong! It doesn't matter if you're the child of a millionaire or the child of a binman: you only pay in proportion to your own subsequent success! In England under the new scheme people will only start paying anything when they're earning over £21k. Before it was £15k. That means that the poorest often won't pay much if anything back, and if they do, they'll be paying back much smaller amounts in any given month, making it easier to build up savings in the early years after graduation.

 

In other words, the new system makes it EASIER for people from poor backgrounds to get to Uni. The increase in means tested grants down south as part of the big package and also extending the student loans facility to part time students is a massive step forward for young people who for whatever reason would not otherwise be able to go to university for other financial reasons.

 

If you really understand the system, I'd ask why you made such a simple error?

 

As for the quotas, I didn't take you out of context. A quota is a quota is a quota. Quotas by definition serve to exclude people who would be more deserving on a case by case basis in favour of those who get in for no other reason than to meet the quota. Quotas are definitionally unfair. They mask rather than tackle the inequalities that get you there in the first place.

 

 

 

But nothing I've said is inaccurate. The reason the response is long is because having tried to state things really simply early on, people keep perpetuating misconceptions. I therefore feel the need to spell it out sentence by sentence in the vain hope they might actually follow it and work out where they're going wrong.

 

 

 

By patronising, you mean right.

 

 

 

There are a number of things that are important in all of this.

 

First of all, yes, the student fee affects the "notional" amount that you owe. However because of the actual rate at which the government are asking people to repay it, almost no one will actually pay the full amount back, because after 30 years the government down south will write it off.

 

Secondly, it behaves exactly like a graduate income tax. The more you earn the more you pay back. If you earn over £21k you pay 9 pence in every pound over that back to the student loans company. Unless someone earns over £35k every year for 30 years (adjusted for inflation) there is absolutely no chance that these contributions will mean they pay it all back. In other words, only those that subsequently go on to become very rich will pay more than they do under the current system. The payments are spread over a longer time, made over a higher initial threshold (under the old English system they had to start paying back after they were on £15kpa) so according to the calculations made by the IFS, the lowest 25% of graduates will pay less through the loans system for their education than they did in the past.

 

This is why I didn't understand why you were saying that the Scottish system was good but the English system was excluding the poor. Under both systems the poor don't pay anything, or pay very little. The only difference is under the English system, the rich graduates pay a LOT while the rest of the bill in Scotland is picked up by the ordinary taxpayer instead, which includes over half the country which never went to University.

 

If I come across as patronising, it's because I really care about these issues and I really hate it when people form views based on misinformation and misconceptions about how these systems work in practice. If someone turns around to me and says "I think it's fair that people who don't get a University education pay for those who do" then I can respect that. Fundamentally disagree with it; but respect it nonetheless. When people tell me that the English system saddles graduates with debt, excludes the poor from University education and that the changes will "treble" the cost of education for English students it makes me really angry, because these assertions simply aren't true.

 

WJ ref this i agree totally and people disagree because they don't understand it or in MJ case because that's what he does.

[Meister Jag]

Summarise that in a sentence for fooks sake. I'll will, vote SNP.

Alx

 

Look at who I'm dealing with and cut me some f****** slack! Oh, and vote for who you want to mate, just as long as it's not the Tories, Lib-Dems (or have they changed their name again!), New Labour, Christian Alliance, UKIP... there are probably a few more but there's a wee list for starters

[Meister Jag]

WJ ref this i agree totally and people disagree because they don't understand it or in MJ case because that's what he does.

 

So you've both kissed and made up! That's nice WTF does that last bit mean by the way? Is that a back-handed compliment?

[Woodstock Jag]

Look at who I'm dealing with and cut me some f****** slack!

 

Semper argumentum ad hominem. Logica semper ignoratur.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[jaggybunnet]

So you've both kissed and made up! That's nice WTF does that last bit mean by the way? Is that a back-handed compliment?

 

 

no it means no matter how wrong you are, Socialism for one you just keep churning those pages and pages of posts to prove yourself wrong again

[Steven H]

Well first up you did misunderstand the system. That you get that people make a contribution based on graduate earnings is going completely in the face of your questions about why the English fee level was so much higher. The fee level doesn't mean anything. I'd been saying that several times before that. If you'd understood that properly you'd know that it's completely meaningless that the Scottish fee level is £1820 whilst the English fee cap is at £9000. What matters is what people actually pay back. In Scotland they decided that for every type of student except English and non-EU students, the Scottish taxpayer would foot the bill in its entirety for undergraduates. Down south, they decided that graduates would foot most of the bill.

 

I did understand that, just because you are going to be paying back money for 30 years regardless is irrelevant...it's the final figure that people see and think "jeezo, do I really owe that much". The bit I didn't (and still don't) understand is the difference between Scotland and England in terms of paying back. I was under the impression that students pay back fees in conjunction with whatever loan accrued over the 4 years when earning X amount, Am I wrong in that? I also thought that was the same in England, and you have stated several times that that is how it works.

 

You said earlier that these changes in England would make it more difficult for those from less-well-off backgrounds to go to University. This is wrong! It doesn't matter if you're the child of a millionaire or the child of a binman: you only pay in proportion to your own subsequent success! In England under the new scheme people will only start paying anything when they're earning over £21k. Before it was £15k. That means that the poorest often won't pay much if anything back, and if they do, they'll be paying back much smaller amounts in any given month, making it easier to build up savings in the early years after graduation.

 

Depending on whether I have understood the Scottish system (re my above question), the method of 'paying back' is no different, but the amount you pay back is. Now, when you consider the poorest are more likely to take on loans to suppliment their income in order to actually go to uni (as the richer students are likely to have finacial support from parents), then you are adding £20k onto whatever fees you are charged. For some in England the final figure would be somewhere in the region of £55k and it's unlikely anyone will pay all of that back (regardless of how much of a salary you earn). In contrast, and again if I understand the system correctly, in Scotland a student studying for 4 years and getting the highest level of student loan is likelt to be paying something in the region of £26k. I will be on a starting salary of £30k (if I can get a bloody job, but social service jobs are few and competition is high as a result of the cuts being made....that's another arguement tho), I expect to be earning around £45/50k by the time Im 40 (assuming my career path goes to plan), so have a chance of paying back what I owe as I studied in Scotland, if I studied in England there would be no chance of paying it back. Now, coming from a 'poverty' background that was a big thing for me when deciding whether I could go to uni or not and Id imagine it would be the same for many others in similar postitions to me. No matter how it's dressed up, it is 'money owed' and 'money owed' tends to have a big impact on people.

 

In other words, the new system makes it EASIER for people from poor backgrounds to get to Uni. The increase in means tested grants down south as part of the big package and also extending the student loans facility to part time students is a massive step forward for young people who for whatever reason would not otherwise be able to go to university for other financial reasons.

 

If you really understand the system, I'd ask why you made such a simple error?

 

I have already accepted that there are big holes in my understanding, and the questions above highlight that, but I think we are viewing this through different lenses. You are effectively arguing that it doesn't matter what you owe because you will be paying it back for 30 years anyway, right? (and if this is what you are arguing, what's the big deal? If it is irrelevant, why the protests earlier in the year? Why the laughable legal challenge that prompted this thread? Why did the Lib Dems stand on the policy of not increasing tuition fees in the last G.E?). While I am arguing that in Scotland you are more likely to pay off 'money owed' because you will be owing less (and I realise this part of my arguement falls on its arse if I am wrong in saying I will start paying back what I owe when I earn a salary of X amount). Believe me, that is a big thing for less well-off people regardless of what they might go on to earn in the future. The fact is, the money owed figure will be lower if you studied in Scotland and that will result in an influx of English based students, which will in turn impact on the number of Scottish based students getting places and you can bet those who will lose out on those places will be from working class backgrounds where educational attainment WILL be low simply because of that background (and there is plenty of evidence to support this, but that too is a seperate discussion).

 

As for the quotas, I didn't take you out of context. A quota is a quota is a quota. Quotas by definition serve to exclude people who would be more deserving on a case by case basis in favour of those who get in for no other reason than to meet the quota. Quotas are definitionally unfair. They mask rather than tackle the inequalities that get you there in the first place.

 

Depending on what it is used for. I think it is fair to have quotas to say, for example, Scottish Universities can only accept X amount of people in XYZ course from EU and other UK countries. This is necessary to ensure Scottish based students are not losing out on a place because of a 'more deserving' foreign student (we will ALWAYS disagree on the debate surrounding 'good enough/not good enough' so no point getting into it). Quotas to say there should be X amount of students from certain 'class' backgrounds, which is the context you used it in, are wrong. Why should we have one quota but not the other? To maintain the high number of places available to Scottish based students.

 

But nothing I've said is inaccurate. The reason the response is long is because having tried to state things really simply early on, people keep perpetuating misconceptions. I therefore feel the need to spell it out sentence by sentence in the vain hope they might actually follow it and work out where they're going wrong.

 

 

 

By patronising, you mean right.

 

Haha, have a look at your two previous sentences, the irony of them is either lost on you or you are trying to be 'clever-funny'. You can be right without being patronising WJ .

 

 

 

There are a number of things that are important in all of this.

 

First of all, yes, the student fee affects the "notional" amount that you owe. However because of the actual rate at which the government are asking people to repay it, almost no one will actually pay the full amount back, because after 30 years the government down south will write it off. - Does this differ from Scotland?

 

Secondly, it behaves exactly like a graduate income tax. The more you earn the more you pay back. If you earn over £21k you pay 9 pence in every pound over that back to the student loans company. Unless someone earns over £35k every year for 30 years (adjusted for inflation) there is absolutely no chance that these contributions will mean they pay it all back. In other words, only those that subsequently go on to become very rich will pay more than they do under the current system. The payments are spread over a longer time, made over a higher initial threshold (under the old English system they had to start paying back after they were on £15kpa) so according to the calculations made by the IFS, the lowest 25% of graduates will pay less through the loans system for their education than they did in the past.

 

I think I have covered this earlier in this response but for clarity, how does this differ between Scotland and England? As the notional figure is going to be completely different in the 2 countries how does that stack up against your 'unless someone earns over £35k p/a for 30 years' example? Is that based on English figures or Scottish ones? Again, I am mindful of the fact my arguement here relies on the fact Scottish students pay back their £1850 p/a fees when they are earning X amount, in addition to their loans...but the 2 notional figures are the not going to be the same.

 

This is why I didn't understand why you were saying that the Scottish system was good but the English system was excluding the poor. Under both systems the poor don't pay anything, or pay very little. The only difference is under the English system, the rich graduates pay a LOT while the rest of the bill in Scotland is picked up by the ordinary taxpayer instead, which includes over half the country which never went to University.

 

Again, I think Ive covered some of this already, but are you meaning the excess cost to educate in Scotland against the fee charged to students (with the former being larger than the latter)? Why does the Scottish system work this way? Was it to make higher education less elitist in terms of finacial backgrounds? More affordable for those from poorer backgrounds? If so Im all for it. The percentage of tax paid by a minimum wage earner is obviously far lower than that of higher and much higher earners, the percentage of that tax paid by lower earners which goes towards higher education is likely to be so low that it is insignificant in the grand scheme of this debate. But, to avoid getting into the problems with the tax system, I take your point however insignificant it is.

 

If I come across as patronising, it's because I really care about these issues and I really hate it when people form views based on misinformation and misconceptions about how these systems work in practice. If someone turns around to me and says "I think it's fair that people who don't get a University education pay for those who do" then I can respect that. Fundamentally disagree with it; but respect it nonetheless.

 

I think it's fair that those who earn a certain salary pay tax, I think its fair that those who earn more pay more tax, and I think its fair that that tax is used to suppliment education (whether it be primary, secondary, further or higher). Is it fair that those who dont have kids, and might never have kids, pay for the education of those who do? Is it fair that some people pay for services they never use? There are flaws everywhere in terms of where our income tax gets spent, to use it in this debate is akin to scandal mongering.

 

When people tell me that the English system saddles graduates with debt, excludes the poor from University education and that the changes will "treble" the cost of education for English students it makes me really angry, because these assertions simply aren't true.

 

Is 'money owed' debt? Does interest get added to that 'money owed'? Does the level of 'money owed' impact on the interest added, i.e. the more 'money owed' the more interest paid? Just because someone is likely to be paying the money back for all of their working life does not make it any less of a debt to be paid back. To my mind, both the systems saddle graduates with debt just different 'notional' figures at the end up. Debt in terms of what is owed to the bank is a hard debt, a'la Thistle, debt which is owed to a rich investor is soft, a'la Dundee and Mr Melville et al. So for want of a better phrase, 'money owed' by gradutes is a soft debt, but still a debt...no?

 

Now shoot me down in flames by telling me the foundation on which my argument is based is wrong and I will skulk away with my tail between my legs and shut the hell up .

Edited August 29, 2011 by Steven H

[Meister Jag]

Woody

 

You know that you'll never change my mind and that I really think you're misguided so let's call it quits on this topic.

 

But on a more personal point, apologies if the public schoolboy jibe was a bit below the belt. It clearly hit a raw nerve and my intention wasn't to demean or hurt in any way. Put it down to my understandable outrage at what I consider to be some of your more outrageous comments; all said in the heat of the moment etc.

 

I also don't think I called you patronising, but if I did, then, again, apologies are offered.

 

Taking you up on one of your comments, my a*** is actually big enough without sticking anything else up it; so whatever it was that you told me to insert won't be going anywhere near it. Plus it takes a big hammer to drive a big nail and I need to keep it in fully working order - there's a 5th International to plan for !

 

In truth, we could go on all day and I had started to respond to your last post in a point-by-point fashion; but it was even beginning to bore me. Alx will be pleased and it was his post that has made me see sense. (Alx: your work is done!) But then again if you want to continue... but if so, we should exchange email addresses or go onto PMs so as not to clog up this DG. Just a thought.

 

We will, of course, tangle on another thread but until then: Трахните Старую Фирму which should loosely translate as FTOF. Although since the "collapse" I've not been asked over for many May Day rallies in Red Square. I wonder why

 

P.S. You can also call off your attack dog JB!

[Meister Jag]

no it means no matter how wrong you are, Socialism for one you just keep churning those pages and pages of posts to prove yourself wrong again

 

I think you secretly love me; can't say I blame you! Come on admit it... I brighten up your day

 

P.S. Deep down, I think you also know that I'm right.

[jaggybunnet]

I think you secretly love me; can't say I blame you! Come on admit it... I brighten up your day

 

P.S. Deep down, I think you also know that I'm right.

 

 

i think we need to sit with a pint ( i will buy) so i can tell you where you are going wrong.

[Meister Jag]

i think we need to sit with a pint ( i will buy) so i can tell you where you are going wrong.

 

Might take you up on your offer - if the wean isn't with me I'm normally in the S&G before the game; and the pints and goldies will be on me. In the spirit of détente Woody is also most welcome.

[Woodstock Jag]

I did understand that, just because you are going to be paying back money for 30 years regardless is irrelevant...it's the final figure that people see and think "jeezo, do I really owe that much". The bit I didn't (and still don't) understand is the difference between Scotland and England in terms of paying back. I was under the impression that students pay back fees in conjunction with whatever loan accrued over the 4 years when earning X amount, Am I wrong in that? I also thought that was the same in England, and you have stated several times that that is how it works.

 

Yes, but the English system will start repayments from a higher threshold and the government writes off anything outstanding after 30 years unlike in Scotland. It's totally bogus to call it a loan because it's a tax with an upper contributions limit.

 

The whole point I've been making is that when people "look at the final figure and go geezo" they're completely missing the point. Because for all but the super-rich graduates (i.e. those that earn on average £50k a year EVERY year for 30 years) they're never going to pay it off. And after the 30 years it gets written off so you've never really "owed" anything. You've signed up to a graduate tax of 9% of earnings over £21k for 30 years. If you earn nothing, you pay nothing. If you earn lots, you pay lots. It's the single most progressive form of funding you could get. No one, if they actually think it through, could possibly be "priced out" because of the fees going up.

 

Depending on whether I have understood the Scottish system (re my above question), the method of 'paying back' is no different, but the amount you pay back is. Now, when you consider the poorest are more likely to take on loans to suppliment their income in order to actually go to uni (as the richer students are likely to have finacial support from parents), then you are adding £20k onto whatever fees you are charged. For some in England the final figure would be somewhere in the region of £55k and it's unlikely anyone will pay all of that back (regardless of how much of a salary you earn). In contrast, and again if I understand the system correctly, in Scotland a student studying for 4 years and getting the highest level of student loan is likelt to be paying something in the region of £26k. I will be on a starting salary of £30k (if I can get a bloody job, but social service jobs are few and competition is high as a result of the cuts being made....that's another arguement tho), I expect to be earning around £45/50k by the time Im 40 (assuming my career path goes to plan), so have a chance of paying back what I owe as I studied in Scotland, if I studied in England there would be no chance of paying it back. Now, coming from a 'poverty' background that was a big thing for me when deciding whether I could go to uni or not and Id imagine it would be the same for many others in similar postitions to me. No matter how it's dressed up, it is 'money owed' and 'money owed' tends to have a big impact on people.

 

Ah but here's the thing. Most of what you say here is correct. But you ignore the glaring difference under the new scheme. The government writes off EVERY PENNY owed after 30 years. This apparently subtle act completely changes the nature of the agreement students enter into when they receive this financial assistance. It becomes something which isn't a loan, but a tax in all but name. Next you'll be telling me that people decide not to get better jobs that have a larger salary because they'll be made to pay more income tax.

 

1. I have already accepted that there are big holes in my understanding, and the questions above highlight that, but I think we are viewing this through different lenses. You are effectively arguing that it doesn't matter what you owe because you will be paying it back for 30 years anyway, right?

 

2. and if this is what you are arguing, what's the big deal? If it is irrelevant, why the protests earlier in the year?

 

3. Why the laughable legal challenge that prompted this thread?

 

4. Why did the Lib Dems stand on the policy of not increasing tuition fees in the last G.E?).

 

1. Not quite. The argument is it doesn't matter what you "owe" because you'll no longer have to pay anything 30 years later regardless of whether you owe nothing or still the full whack. I.e. it's not really a loan at all, but a graduate tax funded finance package.

 

2. The NUS wilfully misrepresented the truth and spread nonsense scare stories about the truth of the situation. People looked at the fees and not what was getting repaid. Hundreds of thousands of parents and children all over England don't understand the very basic facts about University funding. Their specific graduate tax proposal was going to hit the poorer harder!

 

3. Equality issues. There's a clear difference between being made to make a graduate contribution and not being made to.

 

4. They were idiots to do so and Vince Cable admitted as much because they played to the conceptual misunderstanding of the system and played on it with a meaningless and unsustainable pledge.

 

While I am arguing that in Scotland you are more likely to pay off 'money owed' because you will be owing less (and I realise this part of my arguement falls on its arse if I am wrong in saying I will start paying back what I owe when I earn a salary of X amount).

 

Well yes and no. You are obliged pay back PROPORTIONALLY over a salary of X amount. That means that the amount you're paying back in principle should never be more than you can afford. This is why it's not really a debt. It's a tax with an upper-contributions limit.

 

Believe me, that is a big thing for less well-off people regardless of what they might go on to earn in the future. The fact is, the money owed figure will be lower if you studied in Scotland and that will result in an influx of English based students, which will in turn impact on the number of Scottish based students getting places and you can bet those who will lose out on those places will be from working class backgrounds where educational attainment WILL be low simply because of that background (and there is plenty of evidence to support this, but that too is a seperate discussion).

 

Of course the money owed level will be lower in Scotland. But if English students come up here, it frees up spaces down south. And because the system down south is so fair, lots of Scottish students could take advantage of it and never have to pay back a penny if it doesn't work out.

 

Depending on what it is used for. I think it is fair to have quotas to say, for example, Scottish Universities can only accept X amount of people in XYZ course from EU and other UK countries. This is necessary to ensure Scottish based students are not losing out on a place because of a 'more deserving' foreign student (we will ALWAYS disagree on the debate surrounding 'good enough/not good enough' so no point getting into it). Quotas to say there should be X amount of students from certain 'class' backgrounds, which is the context you used it in, are wrong. Why should we have one quota but not the other? To maintain the high number of places available to Scottish based students.

 

Nah, fundamentally disagree. A quota is a quota is a quota. It's not for the Scottish Government to socially engineer the composition of Scottish Universities.

 

Edit: oh and I should point out I never said you didn't understand what a quota is. I simply said you couldn't twist its logical impact to make it look like something else.

 

Haha, have a look at your two previous sentences, the irony of them is either lost on you or you are trying to be 'clever-funny'. You can be right without being patronising WJ .

 

I'll let you have a wee think about that

 

I think I have covered this earlier in this response but for clarity, how does this differ between Scotland and England? As the notional figure is going to be completely different in the 2 countries how does that stack up against your 'unless someone earns over £35k p/a for 30 years' example? Is that based on English figures or Scottish ones? Again, I am mindful of the fact my arguement here relies on the fact Scottish students pay back their £1850 p/a fees when they are earning X amount, in addition to their loans...but the 2 notional figures are the not going to be the same.

 

If you go to an English University, you will not pay off your loan in the 30 year period if your starting salary is below £35k and rises in line with inflation. It will thus function as a tax. The Scottish system doesn't write-off debt after an indeterminate period so whilst you're more likely to pay it all back, if you don't it will linger. Hence if anything it's more like a loan than the English system.

 

Again, I think Ive covered some of this already, but are you meaning the excess cost to educate in Scotland against the fee charged to students (with the former being larger than the latter)?

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say there, but I think you're asking why the fee is higher? I'll use hypothetical numbers here to explain.

 

In Scotland the cost of educating a student is X=100. The amount the government assumes the cost of is X (i.e. 100).

 

In England the cost of educating a student is X=100. The amount the government assumes the cost for is Y=20 and the amount that is funded from graduate loans is Z=80.

 

In England, some of Z will end up being added to Y as some people will never get close to paying the full amount back. In Scotland (ignoring living cost loan for a moment) all the cost is borne out of taxation.

 

The thing is, people keep saying "how come Scotland can afford to make students pay little/less than England?". The answer is they can't. Because they haven't raised more taxes to pay for this extra expense, the Universities in Scotland are actually losing £200million a year and it's getting bigger.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Why does the Scottish system work this way? Was it to make higher education less elitist in terms of finacial backgrounds? More affordable for those from poorer backgrounds? If so Im all for it.

 

But the amazing thing is that it doesn't do that! People only pay back their loans in line with their ability to pay! It seems you still don't grasp that!

 

The percentage of tax paid by a minimum wage earner is obviously far lower than that of higher and much higher earners, the percentage of that tax paid by lower earners which goes towards higher education is likely to be so low that it is insignificant in the grand scheme of this debate. But, to avoid getting into the problems with the tax system, I take your point however insignificant it is.

 

Well that's obviously true, but you're forgetting that not everyone who didn't get to go to University is poor. You are asking people who left school at 16, grafted and ended up running a company making lots of money, already paying lots of tax, to further subsidise the education of the kids of other millionaires. It's not an insignificant point, but a fundamental ideological one.

 

I think it's fair that those who earn a certain salary pay tax, I think its fair that those who earn more pay more tax, and I think its fair that that tax is used to suppliment education (whether it be primary, secondary, further or higher).

 

Is it fair that those who dont have kids, and might never have kids, pay for the education of those who do? Is it fair that some people pay for services they never use? There are flaws everywhere in terms of where our income tax gets spent, to use it in this debate is akin to scandal mongering.

 

Well actually they're not fair, no. There's a clear distinction to be drawn between primary/secondary and tertiary education in that the first two are made compulsory by the state whilst the latter is entirely voluntary.

 

Is 'money owed' debt? Does interest get added to that 'money owed'? Does the level of 'money owed' impact on the interest added, i.e. the more 'money owed' the more interest paid? Just because someone is likely to be paying the money back for all of their working life does not make it any less of a debt to be paid back. To my mind, both the systems saddle graduates with debt just different 'notional' figures at the end up. Debt in terms of what is owed to the bank is a hard debt, a'la Thistle, debt which is owed to a rich investor is soft, a'la Dundee and Mr Melville et al. So for want of a better phrase, 'money owed' by gradutes is a soft debt, but still a debt...no?

 

No. The English system's 30-year write-off clause completely changes the nature of the beast. These aren't soft loans. These aren't even loans. They are graduate taxes with a maximum contribution limit that is set according to how much financial assistance you're given and which rises over time at 3% above inflation. I've said that I don't like the "3% above" bit but it only actually affects those who are remotely likely to pay their loan back, which are those who graduate, immediately earning over £35kpa and earning circa £150k by 2045.

 

Now shoot me down in flames by telling me the foundation on which my argument is based is wrong and I will skulk away with my tail between my legs and shut the hell up .

 

Always happy to assist

Edited August 29, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Woody

 

You know that you'll never change my mind and that I really think you're misguided so let's call it quits on this topic.

 

Ditto, good sir.

 

But on a more personal point, apologies if the public schoolboy jibe was a bit below the belt. It clearly hit a raw nerve and my intention wasn't to demean or hurt in any way. Put it down to my understandable outrage at what I consider to be some of your more outrageous comments; all said in the heat of the moment etc.

 

It's not so much hit a nerve as just one of the most bemusing things I come across an awful lot when people dare to argue against something advocated by socialists or social democrats.

 

I also don't think I called you patronising, but if I did, then, again, apologies are offered.

 

Nah wasn't suggesting that. Was suggesting it was odd that I should be called out for being patronising when yokels like you were every bit as guilty.

 

Taking you up on one of your comments, my a*** is actually big enough without sticking anything else up it; so whatever it was that you told me to insert won't be going anywhere near it. Plus it takes a big hammer to drive a big nail and I need to keep it in fully working order - there's a 5th International to plan for !

 

Too much information, Comrade.

 

We will, of course, tangle on another thread but until then: Трахните Старую Фирму which should loosely translate as FTOF. Although since the "collapse" I've not been asked over for many May Day rallies in Red Square. I wonder why

 

P.S. You can also call off your attack dog JB!

 

I wouldn't consider JB an attack dog so much as a begrudging ally. If in your wee imaginary world I resemble Thatcher, JB's an anyonymous Chilean General who was a bit of a bastard.

 

Might take you up on your offer - if the wean isn't with me I'm normally in the S&G before the game; and the pints and goldies will be on me. In the spirit of détente Woody is also most welcome.

 

:lol:

 

Nixon visits the Red Star and Garter!

[Uncle Psychosis]

I also don't think I called you patronising, but if I did, then, again, apologies are offered.

 

You should never apologise for telling the truth MJ