The CBI once again prove how out of touch with reality they are....

[Carousel]

That's not "the problem". "The problem" is the outcomes he values are really undesirable.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well thats quite simple. But simply speaking why should people from public schools be getting a subsidised higher education?

Because a small percentage of public school pupils aren't from privileged families, but rather got offered places because of their academic ability. I don't think it's fair to butt-fuck them just because the majority of pupils at their school came from wealthy backgrounds.

The idea that its OK cos they will end up paying more in taxes is deeply flawed.
What happens with your idea if they decide to leave the country to somewhere where they can earn more and pay less tax.
I have nothing against people on £100,000 paying more tax even if 1% seems too little. But i do have something against very priveleged people expecting to be subsidised.

A tax would be a reasonably stable income stream for education for a very long time, whereas pissing around making everyone who attended a public school pay would see a one-off "hit" to rich pockets that the accountants of the wealthy would soon find some way of compensating for.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nope nowhere have i said the majority benefit of H/E goes to the upper classes.

Yes you have.
Bear in mind just how many times this subject has come up, balders.

Yeah so more has been spent on universal education. largely due to things like sure start and the ema id guess....shows that New Labour has not been all bad i suppose?

No, it shows that new Labour acted pragmatically (given research that apparently showed that good child nutrition not only gets better learning outcomes, but better behaviour too), and as far as EMA goes very much in line with what boss-class organisations like the CBI wanted.

 

[tbaldwin]

Because a small percentage of public school pupils aren't from privileged families, but rather got offered places because of their academic ability. I don't think it's fair to butt-fuck them just because the majority of pupils at their school came from wealthy backgrounds.

A tax would be a reasonably stable income stream for education for a very long time, whereas pissing around making everyone who attended a public school pay would see a one-off "hit" to rich pockets that the accountants of the wealthy would soon find some way of compensating for.

1 Sorry that is just such a poor poor arguement..Because a very few not so priveleged might lose out its better to ensure all the priveleged dont miss out.....

2 Not arguing against higher taxes as i made clear. But if people benefit from higher education it makes snse they pay for it or towards it apart from in exceptional circumstances.
You still havent dealt with what happens if somebody gets a subsidised H/E and then uses it to get a better paid job abroad.

 

[ViolentPanda]

1 Sorry that is just such a poor poor arguement..Because a very few not so priveleged might lose out its better to ensure all the priveleged dont miss out.....

So you're happy to fuck people over, just as long as you get your own way, then?

2 Not arguing against higher taxes as i made clear. But if people benefit from higher education it makes snse they pay for it or towards it apart from in exceptional circumstances

So yoy're happy to forego a tax take that could boost the standard of education across the board in order to get your licks in on people you don't like?

.
You still havent dealt with what happens if somebody gets a subsidised H/E and then uses it to get a better paid job abroad.

Fine 'em a sum equivalent to their subsidy (plus interest), and don't let them exit the UK until they've paid it. If their overseas employers want them that badly, they can pay their debt off for them.

 

[tbaldwin]

1 So you're happy to fuck people over, just as long as you get your own way, then?

2 So yoy're happy to forego a tax take that could boost the standard of education across the board in order to get your licks in on people you don't like?

3 Fine 'em a sum equivalent to their subsidy (plus interest), and don't let them exit the UK until they've paid it. If their overseas employers want them that badly, they can pay their debt off for them.

1 But where have i said that? Again its a very poor arguement. You have to have laws/rules/benefits fit for general purpose to pretend you can do that without some people feeling at least temporarily agrieved is the politics of never taking responsibility.

2 Where have i said that?

3 Go on expand the point. Show how it could work in practice?

 

[doddles]

It's worth noting that with HE, the graduate benefits economically, but so does the taxpayer:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14428647

So it's wrong to see HE as a net government expense - it is in fact a net earner.

 

[tbaldwin]

That study shows that students benefit far more than the average taxpayer, which also includes students. It seems to be a good arguement (despite the economist spin) for making students pay a higher proportion of the real cost of their higher education.

 

[ViolentPanda]

1 But where have i said that?

You said:
"1 Sorry that is just such a poor poor arguement..Because a very few not so priveleged might lose out its better to ensure all the priveleged dont miss out....."
Not only are you saying "fuck the few not so privileged who'll lose out", you're also falsely saying that I propose to let the privileged majority carry on as they are.

Again its a very poor arguement. You have to have laws/rules/benefits fit for general purpose to pretend you can do that without some people feeling at least temporarily agrieved is the politics of never taking responsibility.
2 Where have i said that?

You're insisting that:
"...if people benefit from higher education it makes snse they pay for it or towards it apart from in exceptional circumstances",
in other words, going by your own pronouncements on this thread, you want them to pay for their courses and tuition as they take the courses, rather than taxing them (and everyone else who earns over £100,000 a year).

3 Go on expand the point. Show how it could work in practice?

Like any tax does. If you hypothecate the take from the tax from the moment that tax "goes live" you don't get any worries about the Treasury reallocating it.
Me, I'd happily pay a 1% "schools tax" additional to other taxation if I was reasonably convinced it'd help lift the standard of education.
As for operating a system where subsidies have to be returned, all you'd need would be a standard type of indenture as was used by the guilds, or a system similar to the UK military, where you can "buy yourself out" by repaying the cost of your training.
All you appear to be interested in is nailing higher ed, even if it fucks over those who need help most.

 

[_angel_]

If you wanted to even out the playing fields in universities there'd be some law passed whereby a corresponding number of public school v state school places were divided up (ie no university places for more than 10% or whatever to go to private schooled kids and a certain % quota of kids to come from low-middle income families) while still making higher education free. I'm sure it could be done somehow, and it would be a lot fairer than simply making everyone pay (the current system).

I get the impression tbaldwin has more of a grudge against people getting a higher education than genuinely want to see people from lower income families getting a chance to have it, though.

 

[doddles]

That study shows that students benefit far more than the average taxpayer, which also includes students. It seems to be a good arguement (despite the economist spin) for making students pay a higher proportion of the real cost of their higher education.

If anything, what it shows is that those countries that demand greater payment by their HE students show a greater imbalance between student benefit and taxpayer benefit. Which would argue for lowering or abolishing HE student fees.

 

[Carousel]

Yeah. I'm perfectly happy with providing education as a true public good if that's what the majority want. At the same time to make that work in a sustainable way I think we need a different kind of economy based on the increasingly automated production of an abundance of material things. Houses, transport, energy, machines, even art and so on. That way we can print the money off to fund stuff like health care and education without wrecking the supply of all the things we currently import. Rolling back the welfare state is as much a consequence of the UK's cycle of oil crises as anything. The dumbing down of education follows as a consequence of the bourgeois agenda of bureaucratising the economy. Given that, I suggest that the education question isn't one of the Fabianist principle of socialisation. More a matter of advancing the economy so that people, especially the young, are economically independent, have incomes high enough to enjoy ("buy" if you like) the education they want. Something along the lines of a citizen's income, Purple Wage or whatever that they can spend on whatever education they fancy.

 

[tbaldwin]

If you wanted to even out the playing fields in universities there'd be some law passed whereby a corresponding number of public school v state school places were divided up (ie no university places for more than 10% or whatever to go to private schooled kids and a certain % quota of kids to come from low-middle income families) while still making higher education free. I'm sure it could be done somehow, and it would be a lot fairer than simply making everyone pay (the current system).

I get the impression tbaldwin has more of a grudge against people getting a higher education than genuinely want to see people from lower income families getting a chance to have it, though.

Well youlld be wrong.
But Socialism to me is about priorities and the priority should be a good education for all.
At the moment the education system perpetuates the advantages that some people are born into.
The rich can thinly disguise this whether its assisted school places or higher education it only strengthens inequality.

 

[jonajuna]

it would be interesting to know how many of the people that are arguing for higher taxes actually pay income tax?

i have always found it easy to argue for a "solution" that doesn't effect you, just like its easy to volunteer someone else for the shitty jobs

 

[tbaldwin]

You're insisting that:
"...if people benefit from higher education it makes snse they pay for it or towards it apart from in exceptional circumstances",
in other words, going by your own pronouncements on this thread, you want them to pay for their courses and tuition as they take the courses, rather than taxing them (and everyone else who earns over £100,000 a year).

You do know what the word TOWARDS means don't you.
So NO i dont insist that they all to pay for their courses. I think the richer they are the more they should pay.....And i keep saying that i am more than happy for tax for those earning over 100k to go up

But i still dont really think much of your idea on how you could ensure all those who benefit from the subsidised H/E pay something back.
I don't think you have given it enough thought.

 

[tbaldwin]

it would be interesting to know how many of the people that are arguing for higher taxes actually pay income tax?

i have always found it easy to argue for a "solution" that doesn't effect you, just like its easy to volunteer someone else for the shitty jobs

Well i pay alot of tax. Consider myself very fortunate to be paying so much. And would be happy to pay more if the money was spent wisely on tackling inequality.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well youlld be wrong.
But Socialism to me is about priorities and the priority should be a good education for all.

Which isn't "socialism" at all, but rather "fire-fighting".

At the moment the education system perpetuates the advantages that some people are born into.
The rich can thinly disguise this whether its assisted school places or higher education it only strengthens inequality.

Yes, but given that you've never come up with a workable way to get round it...

 

[ViolentPanda]

You do know what the word TOWARDS means don't you.
So NO i dont insist that they all to pay for their courses. I think the richer they are the more they should pay.....And i keep saying that i am more than happy for tax for those earning over 100k to go up

Problem is that your idea of graduating repayments will just stir up resentment and nit-picking by twats who'll moan that "I only earn 50p a year over the qualifying amount to pay less. Why is Baldwin's government punishing me?".

But i still dont really think much of your idea on how you could ensure all those who benefit from the subsidised H/E pay something back.
I don't think you have given it enough thought.

I've given it plenty of thought. If you're that worried about your educational investment fleeing abroad at the first opportunity, then you legislate to stop it happening for a fair period of time, just like some "developing nations" are now doing with their newly-trained professionals to stop the US and UK strip-mining them, or to at least essay compensation of they do poach them.

 

[tbaldwin]

I've given it plenty of thought. If you're that worried about your educational investment fleeing abroad at the first opportunity, then you legislate to stop it happening for a fair period of time, just like some "developing nations" are now doing with their newly-trained professionals to stop the US and UK strip-mining them, or to at least essay compensation of they do poach them.

Really? Where is that happening? Could it work somewhere like the UK. On the surface at least it seems like it would not work that well. But do you know how it works in practice etc?
I would be interested to know more.

 

[_angel_]

Well youlld be wrong.
But Socialism to me is about priorities and the priority should be a good education for all.
At the moment the education system perpetuates the advantages that some people are born into.
The rich can thinly disguise this whether its assisted school places or higher education it only strengthens inequality.

You don't seem to have suggested anything to help get kids from poorer backgrounds into HE though, less I missed it.

Why mention "assisted places"? That's got nothing to do with providing HE for free, so therefore not putting off the poorer student. Why constantly lump in HE with public schools/ private schools they are two separate issues.

 

[tbaldwin]

You don't seem to have suggested anything to help get kids from poorer backgrounds into HE though, less I missed it.

Why mention "assisted places"? That's got nothing to do with providing HE for free, so therefore not putting off the poorer student. Why constantly lump in HE with public schools/ private schools they are two separate issues.

1 I fully support things like the EMA, which has gone someway to tackle educational disadvantage. I'd like to see more money go people from poorer backgrounds in all types of education.
But you right i dont see H/E as a priority.

2 Because Assisted school places works on a similar fig leaf principle. Supposedly there to show how inclusive independent schools are...Letting 50% of people from state schools into Oxbridge impresses me about as much...
H/E and the Independent Schools are linked historically. Did you know that until 1950 both Oxford university and Cambridge selected 2 MPs each for parliament.
Private Schools and H/E are both important parts of the Class system.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Really? Where is that happening?

From what I can remember, Kenya and Uganda are both putting this through their legislatures at the mo, Angola already has and Pakistan is considering legislating.

Could it work somewhere like the UK. On the surface at least it seems like it would not work that well.

Why not?
We had guild contracts for apprenticeships into the 1970s. All you need is a variation on that which states that if you leave the country to work elsewhere within, say, 10 years of going through higher ed, you have to pay back a proportion of the cost to the state.
It'd take a couple of years before head-hunters were offering packages to cover this, if graduates were looking that promising to them, and that way everyone is happy: The state recovers its costs, the individual their freedom.

Not that I think any of this should actually happen. I think education should be universally free, so that everyone is able to achieve their full potential if they want to, and I'd make it free by expropriating the wealth of people who'd previously sent their children to fee-paying schools.

 

[_angel_]

1 I fully support things like the EMA, which has gone someway to tackle educational disadvantage. I'd like to see more money go people from poorer backgrounds in all types of education.
But you right i dont see H/E as a priority.

2 Because Assisted school places works on a similar fig leaf principle. Supposedly there to show how inclusive independent schools are...Letting 50% of people from state schools into Oxbridge impresses me about as much...
H/E and the Independent Schools are linked historically. Did you know that until 1950 both Oxford university and Cambridge selected 2 MPs each for parliament.
Private Schools and H/E are both important parts of the Class system.

You can't not have people going through higher education these days in a country like the UK. There are simply too many jobs that require degrees. Or do you want even jobs like nursing and occupational therapist etc to become the sole preserve of rich middle class people?


I am guessing you come from a generation where it was perfectly possible to get a good job without needing to have a degree, that's not the case these days.
Like I said, there could easily be a way to make universities take most of their students from medium-low income families.

 

[jonajuna]

Or do you want even jobs like nursing and occupational therapist etc to become the sole preserve of rich middle class people?

or you could work agencies like i did as a student nurse... trust me, the £40 pw bursary i got didnt even cover my rent


to be fair, public service jobs are the only skills i do think should be public funded.... im yet to see the societal value in "history of modern impressionism"