ConDems tuition fee hike could reduce student numbers by half in Sheffield

[go4it 10]

1) I think the ConDems increase in student fees will lead to a fall in house prices, less restaurants, less busy pubs, a reduction in the variety of shops,

less work for property developers etc.

 

 

2) We can see that Labours introduction of tutition fees (of £3 grand NOT the ConDems £9 grand) has had NO damage on the economy of Sheffield because the number of students has NOT gone down since their introduction.

 

You're such a drama queen.

 

Houses prices in student areas will remain the same.

 

Less restaurants? - not many students go out for a 3 course meal!

 

Less busy pubs? - students area pubs will always do well.

 

Variety of shops? - again find a student who wants Harvey Nicks.

 

Less work for property developers - Universal problem due to the mess Labour created. Their solution to this was PFI which has created more debt to the nation.

 

They do not pay back these fees until they start earning.

 

You work hard, get the job then say a little thank you to the Government for helping you get there.

[alas_alas 10]

I'll try to come back on a few of your contentions:

 

I couldn't disagree more. An unsecured debt is different to a debt secured on your house, which is different to a debt to a loan shark liable to come around and break your legs. Graduate debts are income-contingent: if you can't afford to repay them then you don't have to and there are no consequences. To compare that to other sorts of debt is misleading. To call it "economic bondage to The State" is absurd.

 

I'm not quibbling about types of debt. My point is that regardless of the type of debt, it is debt. It will cost you real money to repay it - it is not some kind of abstract quality, but a real sum of money attached to you, requiring repayment in the form of deductions from your salary which go to the state. You are therefore indebted to the state, rather than being taxed for services rendered by the state and available to all.

 

 

If you base it on income after graduation, then the new system is an improvement: Whereas before, only graduates on less than £15k got a free education, now graduates on less than £21k will get a free education, and as I showed before, graduates with typical debts will pay less under the new system than under the old system if they have below average incomes, but more if they have above average incomes.

 

It seems that you're being inconsistent, assessing poverty when students go to university but assessing cost after graduation. That way of thinking implies that rich people who used to be poor should be treated as poor people irrespective of their wealth, and poor people who used to be rich should be treated as rich irrespective of their poverty, which hardly seems fair.

 

But the thing is, I'm not basing this on income after graduation. I'm assessing how much in real terms you will be indebted under the new system versus the one we're in now. There's no logic in suggesting that I'm 'implying that rich people who used to be poor should be treated as poor people irrespective of their wealth'; this is a completely unfounded accusation. If I suggest that the least affluent but most able potential students deserve to get a free education because of their relative poverty, I'm not therefore suggesting that they 'deserve to be treated as poor people' upon graduation. That is a complete nonsense. Your logic implies that 'everyone needs to pay more than they ever could pay up front for their education' because 'future earnings will make up for their indebtedness'. I fundamentally disagree with that position. The government should subsidise HE, if not actually provide free higher education, because of the progressive goods that this brings to society.

 

As I've said before, under the new system, the least affluent will pay zero, and the most affluent will pay most, so the new system is "truly progressive".

 

Now I'm not quite sure that you understand what "progressive" means. Broadly, "progressive" means that the richer you are the more you pay. In a more technical sense it means either that the richer you are the higher rate you pay, or that the richer you are the more you pay as a proportion of your income.

 

Because repayments are a percentage of income over a threshold, the student loans system is progressive in the latter sense, and because the new system increases the repayment threshold and increases the upper limit for repayments, it's more progressive than the old system. If you don't believe me, do some calculations of your own to check this.

 

Erm, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the term 'progressive' either. You are using it in a purely economic sense, sense 2.d. of the OED definition of 'progressive': 'Of a tax or taxation: increasing gradually according to ability to pay; increasing as a proportion of the sum taxed as that sum increases.'

 

Now, my understanding of 'progressive' is less weasely than yours, equivalent to that of definition 2.a. of the OED definition: 'Characterized by continuous progress or advancement.

a. Of persons, communities, etc.: developing, changing, progressing; esp. advancing in or gaining some desirable attribute or quality; improving, or able to improve.'

 

Free education for all isn't progressive, because it doesn't involve the rich paying more than the poor.

 

The progress and advancement of the working class/the less affluent by way of genuinely free access to higher education, a system that has been possible in the recent past through taxation, is progressive in the generally accepted sense of the term 'progressive'. I think you are very confused indeed. Though you suggest the rich paying for the poor to be educated is progressive (in the economic sense of the term), you misrepresent your position, which relies on levying a heavy economic burden on individuals choosing to enter that system. This couldn't be further from the genuine Marxism/socialism/communism encoded in your twisted version of the epithet 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'.

 

Do you realise that what you're advocating uses money from poor taxpayers, including those who didn't go to university, to reduce the amount that rich graduates will pay? Although you talk about protecting the poor, you're standing up for above-average earners at the expense of below-average earners.

 

Do you realise that some of your taxes go to funding projects and institutions that you would potentially disagree with? Do the actual poor pay these taxes? They certainly pay less of them, if you consider 'poor' as someone earning under £21k.

 

I'm standing up for the higher education system to be accessible to all, to be free, and to be accessible by each according to his/her ability, with resources allocated to each according to their need. That is truly progressive.

Edited April 21, 2011 by alas_alas

[foxy lady 10]

Didnt i hear that the Universities are charging that amount because the government have cut the funding......

 

They were acting on the recomendations of the Browne report which was comissioned and briefed by Lord Mandelson.

[alchresearch 214]

How much do you think the ConDems tuition fees hike will damage Sheffields economy?

 

I don't know but I certainly don't trust a report written by an insurer - LV. What do they know? What have they got to do with it?

 

There are too many "reports" cited by the media as fact.

[rkelly 10]

any one got any infomation on this please?????????????

 

im currently in my first year at sheffield hallam and have one year left to complete my hnd building studies, this tuition price hike wont affect me as it is still the course i started. what i want to know is will i be charge the full tuition fees if i then continue onto the degree in quantity surveying. all though is a different course its under the built environment and i see it as a continuation of my studies. any advice much appreciated.

:huh:

[go4it 10]

any one got any infomation on this please?????????????

 

Being at the Uni before doesn't count for anything fees wise.

 

You will finish your HND, and then apply for a degree. No doubt being on the HND at Hallam will increase your chances of getting on the degree. However the degree will need to be paid for according to the rules and regs when you start the degree course.

[rkelly 10]

cheers for that what the hell i want a degree and a career so what does it matter about the cost, maybe this will put the prestigiousness back into the degree qualification

 

Being at the Uni before doesn't count for anything fees wise.

 

You will finish your HND, and then apply for a degree. No doubt being on the HND at Hallam will increase your chances of getting on the degree. However the degree will need to be paid for according to the rules and regs when you start the degree course.

[alchresearch 214]

cheers for that what the hell i want a degree and a career so what does it matter about the cost, maybe this will put the prestigiousness back into the degree qualification

 

Amen to that. People spend far more on cars and houses with much tougher repayment rates but that seems to have escaped some people on here.