Uk Conservatives university funding plan

[embitteredpoet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3636442.stm
Labour
Variable tuition fees of up to £3,000 a year, covered by loans.
Grants for poorer students of up to £2,700.
Student loans at inflation-only interest rate.
Loans repayable from graduate earnings.
Conservatives
Scrap all tuition fees.
Retain grants for poorer students.
Bigger student loans at commercial interest rate.
Repayable from graduate earnings.

Liberal Democrats
Scrap all tuition fees.
Grants of up to £2,000 a year for poorer students.
Treat full-time and part-time students equally.
Student loans at inflation-only interest rate.
New 50% income tax for earnings over £100,000.

Seems a fairly blatant vote-winner for them. We will give our core supporters a better deal whilst kicking everyone else in the teeth. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't claim that is was going to be a better deal for everyone, which is just a bare faced lie.
The main problem is, that no-one is adressing the fact that the higher education shortfall is far larger than any of the schemes are adressing.

 

[Plotinus]

Seems a fairly blatant vote-winner for them. We will give our core supporters a better deal whilst kicking everyone else in the teeth.

Which one do you mean? The Tories?

Seems to me there's not much difference really between them all, except that that Tories and Lib Dems would scrap tuition fees, but the Tories would also have graduates paying back their loans at higher interest rates. I understand they want to have the universities administer this, essentially turning them into banks. Presumably they think this is how they would replace the funding lost by scrapping tuition fees. I have to say I'm not convinced by that. It sounds to me like they would still be funding universities out of former students' pockets, just like Labour's system, but it sounds better because they can say they've scrapped fees. In fact, it would mean that those who can pay off their loans more quickly would pay less, which seems a little unfair.

Those who would be particularly badly hit would be those going into low-paid vocations such as voluntary organisations and the church.

That sounds a reasonable point to me.

 

[zulu9812]

As a Scottish student, I don't pay yearly tuition fees. Instead, I pay a lump sum of £2000 when I graduate. None of those plans cater for me.

 

[embitteredpoet]

@Plotinius, yes the tories.
On the news, the point was raised that the richer students wouldn't borrow off the universities and thus preventing them from acting as banks as per the tories proposals and thus meanign the real amount of cash raised for the tories plan would be substantially less than suggested.
As per usual the Lib Dems have the best plan, but till we have PR in this country it won't matter.

 

[Mise]

Further proof that standards are dropping. What a terrible banner.

Anyway, the arguement Labour used to introduce tuition fees is that graduates earn far more than those without a degree, so the burden of tuition fees should fall on those who use the most education, i.e. graduates. But the logic is flawed, because if graduates earn more, they also pay more taxes, so they are already bearing the larger burden of tuition fees. That's why they should be scrapped, and people taxed more.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

The Tories claim the average debt under Labour will be £19,300 but under their scheme £10,500.

 

[Plotinus]

But the logic is flawed, because if graduates earn more, they also pay more taxes, so they are already bearing the larger burden of tuition fees. That's why they should be scrapped, and people taxed more.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other, really. Either way, the higher earners pay more to support the universities. I suppose it looks a little fairer the way it is, because you can see explicitly that it's the graduates who are paying. I think the population as a whole would be more angered by income tax rises than by this system, and of course that's always politicians' background concern.

 

[stormbind]

As a Scottish student, I don't pay yearly tuition fees. Instead, I pay a lump sum of £2000 when I graduate. None of those plans cater for me.

Scotland has a completely seperate education system, with policies made by the Scottish parliament. I wouldn't expect these policies to cater for Scottish students, because they aren't supposed to.

The tuition fee issue was designed to create confusion among voters. Students need money to live on - it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter what their income/outgoings are, what matters is that they have enough left over after paying for everything.

Because students do not earn enough, I think an extremely socialist policy (with means testing) should be employed to protect them and help achieve equality. I would never support similar policies for non-students, though!

 

[stormbind]

The Tories claim the average debt under Labour will be £19,300 but under their scheme £10,500.

Everyone is assuming that graduates walk straight into a job, which is not dissimilar to burying their heads in the soil. If we hit a recession, then that generation of graduates are utterly stuffed with rising debts and no job! Bloody ludicrous.

Interest should be linked to inflation. This is a massive issue, because the economy's performance varies from year to year.

Only the Liberal Democrats are actually trying to win student votes!

 

[embitteredpoet]

I looked at that finances of it and if I didn't get money off my parents I'd have no chance:
Loan £3000
Fees £1100
Accommodation £800/term
Does that add up? NO!
There are people who could pay ten grand a year no bother. My tutors say our uni will go private unless it gets more freedom to charge higher top-up fees.

 

[Scuffer]

I find all this moving of money between budget to get some nice looking figures rather stupid and dishonest. However you carve it up, it costs X amount for fund the university and Y amount to fund the student. Whatever you alter, the amount it costs the government (ie taxpayers) more or less than it did before. You can't save money by shifting it from budget to budget. The only you can lower student debt is by having someone else pay it. I'm not against that, but I'd like to see politicians be honest here.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I tend to go with the Liberal democrats on the policy of tution fee's.

Out of the three main parties, they are the only ones who have fair policies with a mind to the future. The tories and labour are to concerened with trying to grab votes, without realising that alot of their policies are not sustainable. The lib dems are honest, they admit things need to be payed for and they seem to have worked out how.

 

[Plotinus]

The lib dems are honest, they admit things need to be payed for and they seem to have worked out how.

I entirely agree with you. The fact is that people want lots of expensive things (nice hospitals, good schools, decent buses etc etc etc) but they don't want to pay for them with taxes. Both Labour and the Conservatives are rather foiled by this because it means they are expected to come up with the money magically and can't raise taxes as much as they would like (although of course the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to high taxes anyway). Only the Lib Dems are honest about it, but they can afford to be because they are not likely to have to form a government. If they did, they would undoubtedly not win a second election, because everyone would be so angry about the high taxes. The public services would be getting better, of course, but I bet the full effects of this would not be felt within four or five years.

The moral of the story is (as usual) most people are basically stupid.

 

[ainwood]

I think that students need to stop considering fees as an expense, and start considering them as an investment - and one that has a pretty good rate-of-return as well.

 

[stormbind]

I think that students need to stop considering fees as an expense, and start considering them as an investment - and one that has a pretty good rate-of-return as well.

Not really, because they can end up with a $60,000 debt, leading to bankruptcy, and unlike any other debts, I believe the Student Loan is unique as it's not negated by declaring bankrupcy anyway.

What a way to start a life. I think they have a perfect right to complain!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

<--- $42,000/year total tutition/fees/housing

What are you Brits complaining about?

 

[ainwood]

Not really, because they can end up with a $60,000 debt, leading to bankruptcy, and unlike any other debts, I believe the Student Loan is unique as it's not negated by declaring bankrupcy anyway.

What a way to start a life. I think they have a perfect right to complain!

I believe that students need to take more responsibility for their actions. Why should they complain about a choice they made?. If I choose to buy a house, and then the housing markets drops leaving me bankrupt, do I have the right to complain about it? Protest to the government for a handout?

Yes, they can end up with a large debt, but they can also end up with very good jobs. They need to think about what they're studying and why. Gone are the days when people go to Uni simply because they don't know what else to do.

In NZ, declaring bankruptcy was a way or erasing student debt, but not a particularly good one.

 

[stormbind]

<--- $42,000/year total tutition/fees/housing

What are you Brits complaining about?

How much of that is left as debt at the end of the year though?

Are you going to complete education with a debt of $168,000 + interest?

 

[Dell19]

Not really, because they can end up with a $60,000 debt.

Are we still talking about the UK here?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

How much of that is left as debt at the end of the year though?

Are you going to complete education with a debt of $168,000 + interest?

No, I have to pay it during the course of a single year or they expell me.

Do you mean to tell me that Universities in Great Britain send you the bill AFTER you graduate?