2015- July Budget

[unbeliever]

It's this kind of faulty logic that means people don't vote and we do end up with a conservative government.

Not that I'd like to see a labour government either, they were just as bad.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:12 ----------

 

 

And if it had gone the other way and someone in Hampshire was saying the same thing, what would your reply be?

 

Quite. I seem to have spent the last several hours trying to convince a socialist who agrees with me on nothing to vote. I don't understand why he doesn't get it.

[Cyclone]

the higher salary produces more taxes. 21k is not a high salary and will be much lower in 2020 when its payback time.

its basically a life time of paying back a loan to the government, they effectively own you.

 

Graduates DO earn more though. Statistically, on average.

So it IS worth taking out the loan and going to Uni if you do a real degree and end up earning 75k by the time you retire.

And if you do an arts degree and work in a charity shop for the rest of your life, well you'll never pay it back, so it was still worth it.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:17 ----------

 

in my constituency it was a labour landslide - always has been. so why do i need to vote? it does not effect the outcome. thats the point.

 

Using this logic only 1 vote counts, the one that tips the winner over the edge to the winning count. Every other vote doesn't count.

[truman]

The public never paid the whole thing. So wrong about that to begin with. It was a maibtenace grant for kids with a poor background i.e parents with no money

Y

 

Why does the parents income have anything to do with it..the students don't start to pay the loans off until they're earning 21k.my 2 kids both had part time jobs during uni and that paid for their "maintenance"..

[Obelix]

Look it at this another way. Nobody goes to university except the elite. What happens?

Whether you loke it or not we need people to go to uni to get better paid work to pay more into the system.

 

You and me both benefit from this so why shoildnt the public contribute?

 

We dont need half the population to go to Uni. Kind of misses the point. We need the elite - the academically elite to be the ones that go to Uni. We certainly don't need the incessant hordes of people doing some of the most ludicroous degrees known going at public expense. That needs stopping and soon.

[Cyclone]

Who is 'we'?

 

Independent body (IMS) has done the calculations and say 13 million people are going to be worse off.

They reckon the lowest paid workers will be worse off to the tune of £1000 a year.

 

Presumably 'we' is GoGo_Dancer and family.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:21 ----------

 

We dont need half the population to go to Uni. Kind of misses the point. We need the elite - the academically elite to be the ones that go to Uni. We certainly don't need the incessant hordes of people doing some of the most ludicroous degrees known going at public expense. That needs stopping and soon.

 

If we want to compete on a global stage then we need the entire population educated to the maximum level that they can achieve.

The academically elite should be getting PhDs, the capable should be getting Bachelors degrees.

[unbeliever]

Graduates DO earn more though. Statistically, on average.

So it IS worth taking out the loan and going to Uni if you do a real degree and end up earning 75k by the time you retire.

And if you do an arts degree and work in a charity shop for the rest of your life, well you'll never pay it back, so it was still worth it.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:17 ----------

 

 

Using this logic only 1 vote counts, the one that tips the winner over the edge to the winning count. Every other vote doesn't count.

 

It seems phoenix boy has been resoundingly outvoted on whether or not to vote.

Could that be because nobody who agrees with him has bothered to vote on the matter. We'll never know. Still the result stands.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:24 ----------

 

 

If we want to compete on a global stage then we need the entire population educated to the maximum level that they can achieve.

The academically elite should be getting PhDs, the capable should be getting Bachelors degrees.

 

To a first approximation, you're right. But the matter of what degrees they study for is critical.

Edited July 9, 2015 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

Presumably 'we' is GoGo_Dancer and family.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:21 ----------

 

 

If we want to compete on a global stage then we need the entire population educated to the maximum level that they can achieve.

The academically elite should be getting PhDs, the capable should be getting Bachelors degrees.

 

Do you really think that half the populace are capable of a B.Sc? That's never been the case and I don't see it changing now. We need to stop spaffing money at people who are manifestly unsuited for a degree, and concentrate resources on them more appropriately.

[Eater Sundae]

Do you really think that half the populace are capable of a B.Sc? That's never been the case and I don't see it changing now. We need to stop spaffing money at people who are manifestly unsuited for a degree, and concentrate resources on them more appropriately.

 

We need to understand how much of the push towards degrees for everyone was an attempt to make us more competitive on the world stage, and how much was to lower the numbers of NEETs on the books. I think I know the answer.

[Cyclone]

Do you really think that half the populace are capable of a B.Sc? That's never been the case and I don't see it changing now. We need to stop spaffing money at people who are manifestly unsuited for a degree, and concentrate resources on them more appropriately.

 

I don't see why they shouldn't be.

[unbeliever]

I don't see why they shouldn't be.

 

It's not clear.

I think 50% is ambitious for BSc's. At least until schools have been reformed to be substantially more intensive in STEM subjects: longer hours and more focus on STEM would be required.

There's no reason why we can't train a great many more people in STEM subjects beyond school even if they're not all up to doing the BSc's. I'm thinking more applied or semi-vocational rather than pure academic training.

We're not doing enough to encourage able kids into STEM.

I'd like to see lower fees for more economically useful post-school studies.