Cyclone Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You're mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If she took a minimum wage job she wouldn't pay her tuition fees back and eventually the government would write them off.What time scale does "eventually" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If she took a minimum wage job she wouldn't pay her tuition fees back and eventually the government would write them off. In the meantime she'd have 50 years of stress and spiraling debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You're mistaken. Could you show me evidence that confirms that that is the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If these companies want staff to work for them, then they should pay wages out of their own profits. They shouldn't expect free workers at the taxpayers expense who are on work placement (or slave labour as it used to be called). People say the long term have a choice, either to accept the work placement or lose their benefits. Its hardly a fair choice now is it? For all those people in favour of this, one day you might find yourself in this very situation, and lets see how smug you are when you given the choice of measly jobseekers allowance or starving/losing your home. As a taxpayer, why do I have to fund these nasty companies so they can have their slave labour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoni_mouse Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If these companies want staff to work for them, then they should pay wages out of their own profits. They shouldn't expect free workers at the taxpayers expense who are on work placement (or slave labour as it used to be called). People say the long term have a choice, either to accept the work placement or lose their benefits. Its hardly a fair choice now is it? For all those people in favour of this, one day you might find yourself in this very situation, and lets see how smug you are when you given the choice of measly jobseekers allowance or starving/losing your home. As a taxpayer, why do I have to fund these nasty companies so they can have their slave labour? That's right, far better as a taxpayer you subsidise the lifestyles of people who don't want to work, or only work in areas that interest them. And this is why this country is up the junction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 That's right, far better as a taxpayer you subsidise the lifestyles of people who don't want to work, or only work in areas that interest them. And this is why this country is up the junction... The country is up the junction because we throw millions at fradulent schemes like this. How many doctors and nurses training could we have funded out of the money that we thrown at the likes of A4e? How many apprentices could properly have been trained out of the money thrown at A4e, plus all the other schemes like CTS (and the rest). If we had done that, we could have trained our youth, giving them the skills/trades needed to set up their own businesses and then setting on other people as their businesses grew. We instead decided to throw money at schemes exactly like this throwing millions down the drain and making some people very rich Meanwhile the list of 18-24 year olds without a job just keeps rising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Then one of us must be mistaken, as I was under the impression that universities are not privately owned businesses but are state owned by the government, and universities only take the fees on their behalf, Similar to how the DVLA have been given the responsibility of recieving the vehicle tax money from drivers. As Cyclone says, you're mistaken. Universities are, in the main, private charities. They don't belong to the state, they belong to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 What time scale does "eventually" mean? It’s not relevant; the point is they don't pay it back unless they reach an income which is well over minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 In the meantime she'd have 50 years of stress and spiraling debt Why? It doesn't affect your credit score and won't affect your ability to take out a loan in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.