Is it feasible to scrap student fees?

[Happ Hazzard]

Corbyn is an idiot just telling those on the far left what they want to hear.

[drummonds]

The OP quotes Corbyn as saying that the fees would be met"...through a 7% rise in National Insurance contributions on anyone earning £50,000 or more a year."

 

-obviously not "leave the bill to be paid by folk here who probably never went to university at all".

 

but obviously anyone who hadn't gone to university who made it would have to pay the fees of those who did go to university and then emigrated.

 

Corbyn is an idiot just telling those on the far left what they want to hear.

 

it didn't take long for labour to forget their new buzz word.. "aspiration".

[Cyclone]

They could do what my kids did and get a job while they are at uni...

 

So the poor kids have to work, the rich don't, and the studies of the poor kids suffer.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 10:14 ----------

 

how would they do that without tuition fees.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2015 at 15:05 ----------

 

 

so anyone who got a free education in the uk could move away to another country and never pay a penny towards their education.

 

Yes. But the idea that people would move to a different continent to avoid a 7% NI charge is ludicrous.

[drummonds]

So the poor kids have to work, the rich don't, and the studies of the poor kids suffer.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 10:14 ----------

 

 

Yes. But the idea that people would move to a different continent to avoid a 7% NI charge is ludicrous.

 

you don't have to move to a different continent, europe will do just fine. but should someone who chooses to take their expensive skills overseas get their eductation paid for by those who stay. that is a simple question.

 

the fact that uk taxes would be punitive is just a bigger incentive to take your skills elsewhere. i think it is known as the brain drain and already 10% of UK graduates take their degree to other lands.

Edited July 17, 2015 by drummonds

[truman]

So the poor kids have to work, the rich don't, and the studies of the poor kids suffer..

 

My kids studies didn't suffer..both 1sts B.Scs... then again they've both been brought up to work and not to expect "owt for nowt"...

Edited July 17, 2015 by truman

[Cyclone]

I guess you're saying that they had to work whilst at uni?

Perhaps they'd have done even better if they didn't have to work... Your anecdote certainly doesn't prove that spending time working doesn't make a degree harder to obtain.

 

---------- Post added 18-07-2015 at 11:23 ----------

 

you don't have to move to a different continent, europe will do just fine. but should someone who chooses to take their expensive skills overseas get their eductation paid for by those who stay. that is a simple question.

 

the fact that uk taxes would be punitive is just a bigger incentive to take your skills elsewhere. i think it is known as the brain drain and already 10% of UK graduates take their degree to other lands.

 

Will they be punitive? Which European countries have lower tax rates now? And which would be lower if the change were made to NI?

[Happ Hazzard]

In my experience, students who had part time jobs had far better study discipline and time management skills than students who were funded by their parents.

[drummonds]

I guess you're saying that they had to work whilst at uni?

Perhaps they'd have done even better if they didn't have to work... Your anecdote certainly doesn't prove that spending time working doesn't make a degree harder to obtain.

 

---------- Post added 18-07-2015 at 11:23 ----------

 

 

Will they be punitive? Which European countries have lower tax rates now? And which would be lower if the change were made to NI?

 

many thousands of graduates move abroad to work. is it ok in your opinion for the cost of their university education to be added onto the tax bills of folk who didn't even go to university. you seem very reluctant to answer that question.

[the_bloke]

“ .. the £7 billion in lost fee revenue would be replaced through a 7% rise in National Insurance contributions on anyone earning £50,000 or more a year.”

 

With tuition fees currently at £9,000, that £7 billion equals 777,777 students. Interesting when the latest figures for the numbers of new university students is at 412,170.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23809095

 

412,170 at £9,000 is £3.7 billion. Where is he getting the other £3.3 billion pounds from? Why once again do I not trust any monetary figures being quoted by a Labour MP?

[Cyclone]

In my experience, students who had part time jobs had far better study discipline and time management skills than students who were funded by their parents.

 

They have to, because they have less time available to study.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2015 at 09:48 ----------

 

many thousands of graduates move abroad to work. is it ok in your opinion for the cost of their university education to be added onto the tax bills of folk who didn't even go to university. you seem very reluctant to answer that question.

 

Perhaps I haven't yet formed an opinion on the idea...

 

If it's many thousands of many millions every year, then it's a trivially small number, and we in return get many thousands coming to the UK who were educated elsewhere. So that sounds like a fair swap...

 

I think on balance that I don't like the proposal. It's an excuse for a tax hike on high earners. But I do think that university should be state funded, although it's probably too late to put that genie back in the bottle.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2015 at 09:50 ----------

 

With tuition fees currently at £9,000, that £7 billion equals 777,777 students. Interesting when the latest figures for the numbers of new university students is at 412,170.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23809095

 

412,170 at £9,000 is £3.7 billion. Where is he getting the other £3.3 billion pounds from? Why once again do I not trust any monetary figures being quoted by a Labour MP?

 

That can't be the revenue he's talking about. That money goes from the government, in loans to students, and then direct to universities.

There's no loss to the government if they start paying it directly.

 

The loss would come in the future, because it's not a loan any more and won't get repaid.

 

Student loans aren't repaid over 3 years though, and many graduates will never repay them. So they already can't be expecting to get back the entire amount lent out.