Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for?

[beorhthelm]

I didn't say Cameron had destroyed the education system. I think he will, and I think he would rather slash frontline public services and welfare than go after the super-rich.

why does any government have to go "after" any group? precisely the wrong attitude from the start, ignoring the larger economic picture and positioning one firmly in far left the politics. whats wrong with a simple and fair tax system that spreads the costs evenly and accepts some might earn (and therefore spend) more?

... Maybe you'll realise that when it's your son or daughter that can't afford to go to university. It's about priorities, and since some cuts are needed my priority would be to go after those that can afford it before those that can't.

first of all, who cut the grant? secondly, who created an artificial aim for every other teenager to go to university, when they arent really that many required, and the skills gained are all wrong compared to industry need, due to bums on seats mentality? i'd rather see free univeristy for the top 20% or so academically able to attend, with decent A levels and vocational training schemes for the rest. definatly a prime area for cutting.

 

[Tooting Gull]

why does any government have to go "after" any group? precisely the wrong attitude from the start, ignoring the larger economic picture and positioning one firmly in far left the politics. whats wrong with a simple and fair tax system that spreads the costs evenly and accepts some might earn (and therefore spend) more?



first of all, who cut the grant? secondly, who created an artificial aim for every other teenager to go to university, when they arent really that many required, and the skills gained are all wrong compared to industry need, due to bums on seats mentality? i'd rather see free univeristy for the top 20% or so academically able to attend, with decent A levels and vocational training schemes for the rest. definatly a prime area for cutting.

In a cost-cutting environment, the govt will be going "after" lots of things, I wouldn't get too hung up about that word. Your presumption is that the tax system is fair at the moment. I would dispute that, not even a party political point, governments of both hues have failed to grasp the nettle of seriously tackling tax avoidance. You shouldn't be able to buy your way out of paying your dues with an expensive accountant.

Not quite sure what point you are making about grants, grants have been getting cut in real terms, and more fees charged, for about 30 years. On the university point, I agree with you, been saying it for years and twice at least on this thread. However, that doesn't remove the possible problem of a student who academically IS in the top 20 per cent, but can't afford to pay all subsistence, rent and fees for three years. I want students to go througn university without running up huge debts, but free is unlikely. Heavy subsidy is maybe the best hope, and it should be means-tested.

 

[beorhthelm]

In a cost-cutting environment, the govt will be going "after" lots of things, I wouldn't get too hung up about that word. Your presumption is that the tax system is fair at the moment. [...] I want students to go througn university without running up huge debts, but free is unlikely. Heavy subsidy is maybe the best hope, and it should be means-tested.

i wouldnt attempt to say it is currently fair and addressing avoidance should be a priority, mainly through simplifying the damn system, flat taxes would be the best way forward. but when people say "go after the super-rich" i do get hung up on it, not because im rich but because it presents an old leftist idea of how the world might be and how you can get there, which even Labour have rejected (and Liberals seem to be moving away from). in other words, taxing the rich more does not make for a fair tax system; treating one person differently from another due to their fortune or hard work is not "fair". seems "fair" attracts a degree of altered meaning in politics these days.

and why should higher education for those bright enough be means-tested? why do you want to entrench old class ideas about judging someone by their parents? surely a fresh young student is an independent person who should go to university and have it paid for on their own merit, not their family's?

 

[Tooting Gull]

and why should higher education for those bright enough be means-tested? why do you want to entrench old class ideas about judging someone by their parents? surely a fresh young student is an independent person who should go to university and have it paid for on their own merit, not their family's?

I think you're twisting a point so much you've confused yourself. Given a free hand, I'd have uni education (at least the rent/books/fees bit) totally free for all. But even I recognise the need for some realism in the current climate. So you could prioritise, if it helped keep the system afloat, and give reduced grants for those that could afford it (hardly a new idea). The idea would be to ensure that NO kid bright enough had to turn it down for financial reasons, and that it wasn't only kids from well-off families that could attend.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Its the same old cycle

Labour in Power = Throw money around to the feral and feckless & Pc brigade

What the shitting bollocks are you f***ing dribbling on about? Can you explain what the hell handing out money to the "Pc brigade" constitutes?!?!? It looks like you've just eaten The Daily Mail and vomited it into your computer.