Search results

yes. because its based on misleading statistics and measurements, leading to odd outcomes. example, wages rising put people in poverty as median earnings goes up so those that dont go up as much fall under threshold; falling wages reduce poverty as median income lowers (as seen in 2008-2011)...

you know thats the model used for progressive taxation? earn more, pay more. and that is why many dislike current tax model. :cheers: looking at some of the points above, its clear that its the structure of the loans, in particular the interest, thats a problem. im not in favour of fees...

completely agree (apart from internships). while Labour wants to give dole out free education to half the youth inclined to go off to university, the half that dont want to or not suited have no similar provision for further training. which is odd. i also believe part of the answer to high...

its sad that the constant debate around tuition fees completely ignores half the youth population, and doesn't challenge how university education could be provided.

except that absolute poverty has continued to reduce and relative poverty ticked up 1% largely due to the way its measured (average earning rise), not austerity.

1 self avowed Marxist ruining the economy for political reason is so much better.

which were all net costs for the treasury, and have since had billions of private money invested in them (except the coal and steel, where the foreign producers will undercut us substantially). of course the new Labour pitch is to semi-nationalise them by taking ownership into the state while...