Labour to cut Tuition Fees...
Discussion
If the students that the current tuition fees apply to don't understand how the new system works and don't understand that they are only likely to pay it back if they earn enough money then they are dumb f
kers.
They have the opportunity of a loan to help them earn more money and better themselves that they only have to pay back if they earn more money and only as and when they do. What's to moan about?
kers. They have the opportunity of a loan to help them earn more money and better themselves that they only have to pay back if they earn more money and only as and when they do. What's to moan about?
moparmick said:
Unfortunately, social mobility died with the last 2 govts. Not that a university degree is worth the paper it is written on, unless it is science, medical or engineering based, what with 1 in 5 ex grads out of work and highly qualified foreign labour with a much stronger work ethic, they dont stand a chance.
I feel sorry for the young of today and that includes my own 18yr old daughter.
No major govt is to be trusted with our children's future.
Cut back on foreign aid and profligacy, cut fees, get rid of pointless courses, make university tougher to get into, to weed out the slackers, leave the eu but stay as a trading nation, pull the shutters down on all immigration except for highly specialised jobs that are in short supply and put england first for a change.
I feel sorry for the young of today and that includes my own 18yr old daughter.
No major govt is to be trusted with our children's future.
Cut back on foreign aid and profligacy, cut fees, get rid of pointless courses, make university tougher to get into, to weed out the slackers, leave the eu but stay as a trading nation, pull the shutters down on all immigration except for highly specialised jobs that are in short supply and put england first for a change.
Where do I vote for you?
moparmick said:
Unfortunately, social mobility died with the last 2 govts.
What makes you say that?You do realise that after many decades of fairly stable government, education, tax and benefit systems you would expect mobility to decline as every individual found their level and successive generations reinforced this, having inherited their parents aptitudes.
You would actually expect declining social mobility in any stable society. Given how long it has been since a major change (such as a major war) you'd expect social mobility to be down to the level of background noise by now.
Or to put it another way:
It's a red herring.
Edited by cymtriks on Sunday 25th September 21:48
Smiler. said:
Well, it's conference time & the pool of leftist turds still have absolutely fk-all to contribute to the recovery of this country so they need a vehicle to drum up support amongst the hard of thinking.
He kind of shot himself in the foot with the unions & their agenda so it now revolves around whining on about how the austerity plan isn't working after a relatively short period when measured against the 13 years of criminal mishandling of the UK economy.
An arse of biblical proportion.
Have had BBC Parliament on in the background today. It has been highly amusing watching a mixture of deluded scottish commies, North Eastern 'T' Grandad said labour were 'T' working mans party, people heckling speakers, union idiots etc etc. Someone got up and had a right moan because of the way the Conference has been organised, the official itinery has been changed. All this with Harriet Harman looking on with that sour scowl and Edward Milliturd staring into space with that stupid pouting lip, looking totally lost.k-all to contribute to the recovery of this country so they need a vehicle to drum up support amongst the hard of thinking.He kind of shot himself in the foot with the unions & their agenda so it now revolves around whining on about how the austerity plan isn't working after a relatively short period when measured against the 13 years of criminal mishandling of the UK economy.
An arse of biblical proportion.
I am not too worried about this lot getting back into power for a very long time. A party with no leadership, policy or anything so far worth listening too.
So this is going ahead. And how Labour claim they will pay for it.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/27/e...
Wonder how important the student vote will be at the election because this could be a vote winner amongst them. Then again, they were probably going to vote Labour anyway.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/27/e...
Wonder how important the student vote will be at the election because this could be a vote winner amongst them. Then again, they were probably going to vote Labour anyway.
Pro student groups claim their 'vote' could influence up to 10 seats.
bbc said:
The research, which tracked student voting patterns since 1997, says there was a surge to the Liberal Democrats in 2001, 2005 and 2010 because they promised to scrap tuition fees.
But the trebling of fees in England by the coalition has damaged both Liberal Democrat and Conservative prospects among students, say the authors.
They predict a student swing to Labour at the 2015 general election.
The report draws on figures from the British Election Study which suggest the proportion of students who would vote Liberal Democrat dropped from 44% in 2010 to 13% in early 2014.
Despite students making up only 3% of the population, they could affect the result in about 10 seats, particularly as the opinion polls are very close, it says.
Prof Stephen Fisher of Trinity College Oxford, who carried out the analysis, said it was "remarkable" the extent to which changes in the student vote had reflected party policies on student finance. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30252713But the trebling of fees in England by the coalition has damaged both Liberal Democrat and Conservative prospects among students, say the authors.
They predict a student swing to Labour at the 2015 general election.
The report draws on figures from the British Election Study which suggest the proportion of students who would vote Liberal Democrat dropped from 44% in 2010 to 13% in early 2014.
Despite students making up only 3% of the population, they could affect the result in about 10 seats, particularly as the opinion polls are very close, it says.
Prof Stephen Fisher of Trinity College Oxford, who carried out the analysis, said it was "remarkable" the extent to which changes in the student vote had reflected party policies on student finance. "
This is both crazy policy and at the same time completely understandable.
- Crazy because it's an incredibly bad way to spend £3bn - the only people that benefit are those that would have paid off their student loan. Low-earning graduates (those who would never pay off a loan of £6k or £9k) don't benefit at all. This group is disproportionately female.
- Completely understandable because the Oxford professor is right - it's a vote winner in some marginal seats. Sheffield Hallam is very much in play.
- Crazy because it's an incredibly bad way to spend £3bn - the only people that benefit are those that would have paid off their student loan. Low-earning graduates (those who would never pay off a loan of £6k or £9k) don't benefit at all. This group is disproportionately female.
- Completely understandable because the Oxford professor is right - it's a vote winner in some marginal seats. Sheffield Hallam is very much in play.
More to the point he's robbing pensions to do it. One analyst says if your annuity is over 26k a year this will affect you.
So, with an ageing population does this sound very sensible ?
If a graduate earns more than £42k, they will have to pay a higher rate on their loans.
Also, if you don't earn much after university your loans will (eventually) be written off. So, this will only really affect those that get a good 1st job and are able to pay down their now decreased loans. So, if you get a job for 35k, this benefits you. If you earn 25k it doesn't make any difference.
From the telegraph:
"The policy will be funded by reducing the rate of pensions tax relief for those with incomes over £150,000 from 45 per cent to 20 per cent.
That money had already been earmarked for the compulsory jobs guarantee – a Labour scheme that would see private employees paid to hire unemployed youths. However, the money can now be split between the two schemes between youth unemployment has fallen under the Coalition, Labour sources conceded."
Brilliant, so the current government have actually got people jobs, so we've got more to piss away!
There are people championing this on the Guardian website, presumably these people did not study economics at university.
Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliba...
So, with an ageing population does this sound very sensible ?
If a graduate earns more than £42k, they will have to pay a higher rate on their loans.
Also, if you don't earn much after university your loans will (eventually) be written off. So, this will only really affect those that get a good 1st job and are able to pay down their now decreased loans. So, if you get a job for 35k, this benefits you. If you earn 25k it doesn't make any difference.
From the telegraph:
"The policy will be funded by reducing the rate of pensions tax relief for those with incomes over £150,000 from 45 per cent to 20 per cent.
That money had already been earmarked for the compulsory jobs guarantee – a Labour scheme that would see private employees paid to hire unemployed youths. However, the money can now be split between the two schemes between youth unemployment has fallen under the Coalition, Labour sources conceded."
Brilliant, so the current government have actually got people jobs, so we've got more to piss away!
There are people championing this on the Guardian website, presumably these people did not study economics at university.
Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliba...
Crafty_ said:
More to the point he's robbing pensions to do it. One analyst says if your annuity is over 26k a year this will affect you.
So, with an ageing population does this sound very sensible ?
Indeed.So, with an ageing population does this sound very sensible ?
Calssic f
king cretinous short term policies. Storing up massive problems for the future. Other Labour policies that have been short sighted- Selling gold bullion reserves
- Removing the tax break on dividends in Pension Schemes
Pensions are a politically acceptable target for both parties because they are seen to be a benefit to the "fat cat" but they are taking it to the stage now where saving for your retirement is becoming very difficult. Creating a massive problem for the future when the govt should be encouraging people to save for their retirement.
It was on R4 PM today
The 45% can only gain 20% pension relief
However the max pension contribution each year is also to be limited to £30k
Pension max lifetime allowance is to be capped at £1m - this apparently means you would get a £30k a year pension.
Thing is on first glance it only impacts 45% big earners - however it impacts 40% earners too as in the pension pot is capped at £30k. You could also say it impacts 20% tax payers as they could if they chose pay in more than £30k a year into a pension pot.
£30k a year max pension impacts
Firemen
Policemen
Teachers
Nurses
Civil servants
Along with of course doctors lawyers and high ranking individuals/CEO etc. So it impacts hugely on so many people.
The other thing is knowing that the goal posts are being moved again for pensions/ what incentive is there to save for the future? Politicians are pushing people to spend the money today jam today sod the future.
Utter madness.
I can accept if they want to reduce the tax incentive but why cap it? What possible reason is there to do that?
The 45% can only gain 20% pension relief
However the max pension contribution each year is also to be limited to £30k
Pension max lifetime allowance is to be capped at £1m - this apparently means you would get a £30k a year pension.
Thing is on first glance it only impacts 45% big earners - however it impacts 40% earners too as in the pension pot is capped at £30k. You could also say it impacts 20% tax payers as they could if they chose pay in more than £30k a year into a pension pot.
£30k a year max pension impacts
Firemen
Policemen
Teachers
Nurses
Civil servants
Along with of course doctors lawyers and high ranking individuals/CEO etc. So it impacts hugely on so many people.
The other thing is knowing that the goal posts are being moved again for pensions/ what incentive is there to save for the future? Politicians are pushing people to spend the money today jam today sod the future.
Utter madness.
I can accept if they want to reduce the tax incentive but why cap it? What possible reason is there to do that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff