Getting rather sick of Clegg-bashing now

[Akrasia]

Increasing tax on business in one area is not an increase in real terms If it is offset by tax reductions and incentives worth more in other areas.

 

Capital gains tax isn't a tax on business, it's a tax on capital gains. The rich were able to present some of their income as capital gains, so that instead of paying 50% income tax on it they paid 18% capital gains tax. The Lib Dems therefore wanted to equalise income tax and capital gains tax rates, so that there was no reward for switching between the two. Unfortunately, a campaign by The Telegraph resulted in a compromise that led to the CGT rate being raised from 18% to 28%.

 

This is another example of being able to influence policy for the better when you're willing to compromise. If they hadn't been willing to compromise, CGT would still be at 18%.

 

I'm thinking of the subsidies taken from kids from poorer backgrounds in order that they went on to do A levels. Has there been an overall rise or fall in educational subsidies for kids from poorer backgrounds?

 

The EMA, which was paid to some A-level students, has been replaced. Studies showed that most EMA recipients would have studied A-levels even without the EMA, so it wasn't achieving its aim of widening access to A-levels, hence the reform.

 

The new scheme will cost less overall (£180m instead of £560m). Of those students that would have received the EMA, those who need help most will get more under the new scheme, and those who don't need help will get less, so whether this amounts to a rise or fall in educational subsidies for kids from poorer backgrounds depends on what you mean by "poorer backgrounds".

 

The pupil premium will target £625m on helping poorer children this year, and £2.5bn/year by the end of this parliament, so however you look at it those two measures combined amount to a rise in educational subsidies for kids from poorer backgrounds.

 

So the majorityy of students will be paying more, and only a small minority will be paying less. Of the ones who are paying less, they will mostly only be paying a bit less, whiole the majority who are paing more will pay a lot more.

 

Just like under the current system, students won't pay anything. Graduates on above average incomes will pay more (in some cases a lot more), and graduates on below average incomes will pay less (in some cases a lot less). If you believe in the rich paying their way, then that's a change for the good.

 

They try and pretend that this isn't a dis-incentive for kids whose parents aren't wealthy.

 

The new system shouldn't discourage those from poorer backgrounds from going to university, because it will only make it more expensive for them if they go on to earn an above average salary, in which case they will be able to afford it. What might put them off is political scaremongering that misrepresents the new system as making university unaffordable when it doesn't.

 

University education subsidies were brought in to increase social mobility, and massively reducing them is only going to further reverse social mobnility at a time when the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at an unprecedented rate. And no amount of spin from the millionaires in the cabinet and the marketing and PR people in their employ will change that!

 

University education subsidies aren't being massively reduced. Universities will get less direct funding from government, but more indirect funding through tuition fees, which the government pays in the first instance. Richer graduates will ultimately pay for some or all of their tuition; poorer graduates won't.

 

If you're against the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, then why are you calling for graduates on above average salaries to pay less to go to university, and for everyone else to chip in to pay for that?

[Phanerothyme]

You've heard it before, nevertheless:

 

Q: Why did Nick Clegg cross the road?

A: Because he promised not to.

[harvey19]

Capital gains tax isn't a tax on business, it's a tax on capital gains. The rich were able to present some of their income as capital gains, so that instead of paying 50% income tax on it they paid 18% capital gains tax. The Lib Dems therefore wanted to equalise income tax and capital gains tax rates, so that there was no reward for switching between the two. Unfortunately, a campaign by The Telegraph resulted in a compromise that led to the CGT rate being raised from 18% to 28%.

 

This is another example of being able to influence policy for the better when you're willing to compromise. If they hadn't been willing to compromise, CGT would still be at 18%.

 

 

 

The EMA, which was paid to some A-level students, has been replaced. Studies showed that most EMA recipients would have studied A-levels even without the EMA, so it wasn't achieving its aim of widening access to A-levels, hence the reform.

 

The new scheme will cost less overall (£180m instead of £560m). Of those students that would have received the EMA, those who need help most will get more under the new scheme, and those who don't need help will get less, so whether this amounts to a rise or fall in educational subsidies for kids from poorer backgrounds depends on what you mean by "poorer backgrounds".

 

The pupil premium will target £625m on helping poorer children this year, and £2.5bn/year by the end of this parliament, so however you look at it those two measures combined amount to a rise in educational subsidies for kids from poorer backgrounds.

 

 

 

Just like under the current system, students won't pay anything. Graduates on above average incomes will pay more (in some cases a lot more), and graduates on below average incomes will pay less (in some cases a lot less). If you believe in the rich paying their way, then that's a change for the good.

 

 

 

The new system shouldn't discourage those from poorer backgrounds from going to university, because it will only make it more expensive for them if they go on to earn an above average salary, in which case they will be able to afford it. What might put them off is political scaremongering that misrepresents the new system as making university unaffordable when it doesn't.

 

 

 

University education subsidies aren't being massively reduced. Universities will get less direct funding from government, but more indirect funding through tuition fees, which the government pays in the first instance. Richer graduates will ultimately pay for some or all of their tuition; poorer graduates won't.

 

If you're against the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, then why are you calling for graduates on above average salaries to pay less to go to university, and for everyone else to chip in to pay for that?

Excellent factual explanations once again.

What I find frightening is that the media do not explain matters in this way instead use sensationalism and scare mongering.

[shortcrust]

Excellent factual explanations once again.

What I find frightening is that the media do not explain matters in this way instead use sensationalism and scare mongering.

 

You're kidding, aren't you? I haven't got the time (maybe later!), but much of Akrasia's 'factual' explanation is actually anything but factual.

[msmouse]

As I said earlier, you make your own bed to lay in. He chose which mask to wear, now he has to face the consequences and he must've known what what was going happen, therefore he has already accepted it.

 

He didn't exactly choose which mask to wear, rather he hamstrung himself when he said pre-election that in the event of a hung parliament he would go into coalition with whichever party that got the most votes.

 

Would he have got a kicking if he went back on his word post election and refused to back the Conservatives? If he had we would have been looking at a minority Conservative administration limping along for a few months before another general election was called. This would most likely have returned a Conservative majority, giving them free reign to implement whatever policies they wanted (including increasing tuition fees) without any moderating influence whatsover.

 

If you were Clegg what would you have done?

[Akrasia]

You're kidding, aren't you? I haven't got the time (maybe later!), but much of Akrasia's 'factual' explanation is actually anything but factual.

 

I think I'm out of time for today too, but you'll understand if I ask you to correct anything I've said that's inaccurate, rather than just taking your word for it.

[Tony]

Imagine if the Lib Dems had backed Brown's Labour Party - Cleggy would have been run out of the country.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[Mecky]

He didn't exactly choose which mask to wear, rather he hamstrung himself when he said pre-election that in the event of a hung parliament he would go into coalition with whichever party that got the most votes.

 

Would he have got a kicking if he went back on his word post election and refused to back the Conservatives? If he had we would have been looking at a minority Conservative administration limping along for a few months before another general election was called. This would most likely have returned a Conservative majority, giving them free reign to implement whatever policies they wanted (including increasing tuition fees) without any moderating influence whatsover.

 

If you were Clegg what would you have done?

 

 

He didn't have to though did he? He chose to do that and now he has to face the consequences.

 

And I don't know if you noticed or not but he is getting a kicking right now. He knows he is finished in Sheffield which is why he's sold his house.

[Rich]

Imagine if the Lib Dems had backed Brown's Labour Party - Cleggy would have been run out of the country.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Gordon Clown couldn't run a tap much less the Country, he would've needed Clegg's help!

[msmouse]

He didn't have to though did he? He chose to do that and now he has to face the consequences.

 

And I don't know if you noticed or not but he is getting a kicking right now. He knows he is finished in Sheffield which is why he's sold his house.

 

No, he didn't have to declare his intentions pre-election and IMO made a mistake in doing so.

 

However, he was never in a position to form a coalition with Labour, as even with all the other opposition parties seats combined there were not enough to form an overall majority.

 

Thus, his only choice was to either form a coaltion with the Conservatives or sit back and wait for another general election which in all likelihood would have returned a Conservative majority.

 

So .. as I asked before, in his position what would you have done?