To EVERY Dutch student!
- Thread starter TIMMAH
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
think you are missing the point there mughi, we are talking about a hypothetical situation not how things actually are at the moment...
i read a biography of richard feynman and i dont recall it mentioning that, perhaps it was left out due to its sensitve nature? mind you it was many years ago so more likely ive just forgotten... nevertheless he is (was?) without doubt worthy of great respect both within and out of the academic world.
think you have a point there - maybe it was a mistake to merge poly's and universities...
i read a biography of richard feynman and i dont recall it mentioning that, perhaps it was left out due to its sensitve nature? mind you it was many years ago so more likely ive just forgotten... nevertheless he is (was?) without doubt worthy of great respect both within and out of the academic world.
think you have a point there - maybe it was a mistake to merge poly's and universities...
Someone made the point along the lines of:
"Why should poor people pay for rich people's kids to go to uni"
Think on this: Suppose that "rich kid" is a medical student. They go on to become a doctor in the NHS, treating rich and poor alike. That poor person's taxes contributed to training and educating someone providing a service to the entire population. Chances are that poor person will benefit from it one day.
That is one example why "poor people's" taxes should support the education of "rich" kids. I'm sure there are plenty others.
Society is about give and take. Unfortunately, some people think that because of age/sex/race/religion/whatever, they are entitled to take without giving. Not a chance sunshine.
PS - remember this:
P&S Forum Rules > j00
Anyone who cares to repeat timmah's ill advised use of language against anyone will feel the power of the force without further warning.
"Why should poor people pay for rich people's kids to go to uni"
Think on this: Suppose that "rich kid" is a medical student. They go on to become a doctor in the NHS, treating rich and poor alike. That poor person's taxes contributed to training and educating someone providing a service to the entire population. Chances are that poor person will benefit from it one day.
That is one example why "poor people's" taxes should support the education of "rich" kids. I'm sure there are plenty others.
Society is about give and take. Unfortunately, some people think that because of age/sex/race/religion/whatever, they are entitled to take without giving. Not a chance sunshine.
PS - remember this:
P&S Forum Rules > j00
Anyone who cares to repeat timmah's ill advised use of language against anyone will feel the power of the force without further warning.
worse education?
they probably trying to keep up with germany
our school and some others had a talk with politicians today, but they're dumb as fuck and won't understand any arguments. they completely ignore questions about what they're planning to do, they obviously have no clue. just
I spent my first year as a trainee solicitor on £10,000 a year before tax.
Tax went like this: (all rates/allowances for 2001/2002 tax year)
1) £10,000 gross earnings
2) £4535 - Personal Allowance (non taxed income)
3) So = £5465 of taxable income.
4) First £1880 of income to be taxed at 10% (starting rate) = £188 of starting rate tax.
5) So = £3585 of income to be taxed at 22% (basic rate) = £788.70 of basic rate tax.
6) National Insurance - basically another 10% income tax on £5465 = £546.50
7) So total tax = £188 + £788.70 + £546.50 = £1523.20 total tax.
8) So net pay = £10,000 - £1523.20 = £8,476.80
9) £8476.80 / 12 = £706.40 per month.
Now, from that monthly figure, deduct rent, food, council tax, heating bill, phone bill, contents insurance and sundry other necessities and even repaying a loan debt at £10 per month/week will basically break your budget.
I have been on £10,000 gross a year. It is not fun. You can't live on it. You can survive on it. That is not the same thing. Amusingly, because of my job, I was unable to claim any of the benefits that anyone in any other job would have been able to claim. But that is by the by. My heart would go out to anyone having to repay student debt on £10,000 a year.
The government is fond of tossing about figures saying graduate's starting salaries are £20,000 and that graduates earn £400,000 more over a working lifetime than other people.
This is quite simply bullshit, unless by "graduate" you mean someone leaving oxford/cambridge and going to work for a major bank in London.
The truth is, average graduate starting salaries are in the £13,000 - £16,000 range, and most nearer to £13,000 I suspect.
What I find disgusting is politicians who themselves all went to uni at a time when they got full grants, fees paid for them, and are now in cosy civil service jobs with salaries in excess of £60,000 per year, coupled with average benefits packages amounting to another £20,000 per year (relocation expenses, secretarial allowance etc) and fat pensions they don't need to contribute to at all, which is all funded courtesy of the taxpayer, and who seem to award themselves yearly 40% pay rises are now the ones telling other people they earn too much, should not get such big pay rises and should pay their own way through university. What utter, rank hypocrisy. Especially when it comes from a Labour politician.
@ Spirit - if 40% fell below the repayment threshold for student loans, it doesn't follow that the other 60% were automatically earning telephone number salaries. Most will have only just been in the repayment threshold.
Compare with income tax - £1 is enough to change you from a basic rate, to a higher rate taxpayer. When that happens, your tax rate nearly doubles, and you lose a whole host of benefits and allowances.
Most higher rate tax payers are not super rich bastards who deserve to be squeezed until the pips squeak. Most are in fact just into/above the threshold, and are actually far worse off than those earning in some cases £100 less per year.
Last edited:
k u can get a job working in a milk factory ( yes ive done it ) in london earning 20-25 grand starting wage.
thats quite possible the biggest load of crap ive ever heard i believe everyone should be given the same rights
suppose there is a poor kid who might have the skills and knowledge to go out and find a cure for cancer but is'nt given the chance because there parents have to pay high taxes to support
" rich " kids
.
thats quite possible the biggest load of crap ive ever heard i believe everyone should be given the same rights
suppose there is a poor kid who might have the skills and knowledge to go out and find a cure for cancer but is'nt given the chance because there parents have to pay high taxes to support
" rich " kids
.
Last edited:
Cure for Cancer is way off still, but thats unrelated 
Im in the last year of my degree, but i am fortunate in that, although i do have debt its nowhere near that of my mates and many other students i know.
Also u cant compare the wages of ppl who live in london directly with those from other parts of the country, simply because the cost of living is far higher in London. Also that must have been some milk factory to pay you 20 grand +
either that or u dont mean a manual/labour intensive type job and something more pen pushing?
I do Biochemistry at Manchester Uni atm, however like someone said earlier, unless i wanted to continue into an academic profession, a lot of the theroy wont be much use when its comes to a real job.
I think Joko said sommet about medics gettin more money than ppl with just, say a Biology Bsc. I dont really know about that but i do know that medics know next to fuck all about Biochemistry related stuff, in fact Medics are over rated imo
, i respect there committment to learn the vast amount required to become a doctor but the actual theory of it is no more difficult than any other Science degree imo.
Also dunc (joko) dont do fucking biochemistry as ur end degree, final 2 years (for me at least) are just a complete arse and ive just about had enuf of doing lab work
.
Im in the last year of my degree, but i am fortunate in that, although i do have debt its nowhere near that of my mates and many other students i know.
Also u cant compare the wages of ppl who live in london directly with those from other parts of the country, simply because the cost of living is far higher in London. Also that must have been some milk factory to pay you 20 grand +
either that or u dont mean a manual/labour intensive type job and something more pen pushing?I do Biochemistry at Manchester Uni atm, however like someone said earlier, unless i wanted to continue into an academic profession, a lot of the theroy wont be much use when its comes to a real job.
I think Joko said sommet about medics gettin more money than ppl with just, say a Biology Bsc. I dont really know about that but i do know that medics know next to fuck all about Biochemistry related stuff, in fact Medics are over rated imo
, i respect there committment to learn the vast amount required to become a doctor but the actual theory of it is no more difficult than any other Science degree imo.Also dunc (joko) dont do fucking biochemistry as ur end degree, final 2 years (for me at least) are just a complete arse and ive just about had enuf of doing lab work
.
Originally posted by Thuringwethil
Someone made the point along the lines of:
"Why should poor people pay for rich people's kids to go to uni"
Think on this: Suppose that "rich kid" is a medical student. They go on to become a doctor in the NHS, treating rich and poor alike. That poor person's taxes contributed to training and educating someone providing a service to the entire population. Chances are that poor person will benefit from it one day.
That is one example why "poor people's" taxes should support the education of "rich" kids. I'm sure there are plenty others.
Society is about give and take. Unfortunately, some people think that because of age/sex/race/religion/whatever, they are entitled to take without giving. Not a chance sunshine.
PS - remember this:
P&S Forum Rules > j00
Anyone who cares to repeat timmah's ill advised use of language against anyone will feel the power of the force without further warning.
I can see your point Thur, but its not really relevant. The fact is the rich kids can afford to put themselves thru university without leeching off the poor people. Poor ppl paying for other poor ppl to go to uni and become doctors who otherwise wouldnt of been able to isnt so bad, but poor people paying for those that can afford it anyway? I dont think so
@ the £10k tax think, fine it was a flippant statement, the overall objective of that paragraph was that I consent people shouldnt start paying back until £15k, so we agree anyway.
I didnt say 60% earned telephone number salaries, just that 60% earned above the payment threshold. Naturally not all higher tax rate payers are super rich, however the tax bands are done sensibly in that you are only taxed on the income which is above the rate band ie:
You earn £40k a year, 40% tax rate kicks in above ~ £35k a year, therefore you only get taxed 40% on £5k of your earnings, the rest is at the lower rate.
Myself and Mughster have decided not to become parents.
if we followed any of the arguments about poor parents funding rich kids, then we shouldn't have to fund any bugger's kids, rich or poor.
But obviouslly, that's not how our society works, nor should it.
We, as a society, have chosen to extract a tax from the population at large, and use it to treat illness, or educate th youth of the nation. We don't, for example, have a "you only pay for the NHS if you get sick" policy.
It seems to me that Education Policy should be pretty much blind to the parental situation of a university student. the vast majority of students at university are 16, and therefore, not exactly "kids". I fail to see why the parent's circumstances matter.
in my "Ideal World", if you are studying a course which the government (in association with industry) deems as of strategic importance to the nation, or considered of cultural significance you get full Grant + fees paid.
If you are on a course that's approved by someone like the IEEE or Royal Academy, you get free fees, but support yourself
and if you are doing a course that is purely for your own enjoyment/development, with no benefit for our nation, you pay your own way, and your own fees.
In which case, poor/rich/whatever are all treated the same: on the benefits of the course of study, nothing more.
if we followed any of the arguments about poor parents funding rich kids, then we shouldn't have to fund any bugger's kids, rich or poor.
But obviouslly, that's not how our society works, nor should it.
We, as a society, have chosen to extract a tax from the population at large, and use it to treat illness, or educate th youth of the nation. We don't, for example, have a "you only pay for the NHS if you get sick" policy.
It seems to me that Education Policy should be pretty much blind to the parental situation of a university student. the vast majority of students at university are 16, and therefore, not exactly "kids". I fail to see why the parent's circumstances matter.
in my "Ideal World", if you are studying a course which the government (in association with industry) deems as of strategic importance to the nation, or considered of cultural significance you get full Grant + fees paid.
If you are on a course that's approved by someone like the IEEE or Royal Academy, you get free fees, but support yourself
and if you are doing a course that is purely for your own enjoyment/development, with no benefit for our nation, you pay your own way, and your own fees.
In which case, poor/rich/whatever are all treated the same: on the benefits of the course of study, nothing more.
Last edited:
I have to disagree with that. People should pay for their own education if they can afford it. The goverment supports the poor because if they didnt have support they would not be able to get educated. The rich, however, can afford to pay for their own education and to give them money taken off the poor people is far from right and completely pointless - increases taxes so everyone can have grants and suddenly you'll find people are poorer due to decreased income and more people need grants - vicious circle.
But regardless, loan em the money and in a few years they will be able to pay it back - it only becomes a grant if they never benifit from the degree!
Wont always work that way though .... just coz your parents are rich doesnt mean they will pay for youOriginally posted by Spirit
I have to disagree with that. People should pay for their own education if they can afford it. The goverment supports the poor because if they didnt have support they would not be able to get educated. The rich, however, can afford to pay for their own education and to give them money taken off the poor people is far from right and completely pointless - increases taxes so everyone can have grants and suddenly you'll find people are poorer due to decreased income and more people need grants - vicious circle.
But regardless, loan em the money and in a few years they will be able to pay it back - it only becomes a grant if they never benifit from the degree!
![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
I was lucky enough to only have to top up my grant with a loan, and fees were paid. But my parents were always skint and could never afford to pay what was deemed their contribution to me.
Also, the rules at that time meant that even though I had moved out 2 years before, and was married, in my final year, they were still expected to support me. They didnt give me a penny in that year, and I did not expect them to.
In comparison, one person at the same time who was doing a Masters in "Catering" who was stinking rich (in comparison anyways) had a father who's accountant made sure that they never had to pay a penny towards their maintenance. Made me sick
I would however, tend to treat students equally because you cant know the individual circumstances.
Originally posted by Mughi
Wont always work that way though .... just coz your parents are rich doesnt mean they will pay for you
I was lucky enough to only have to top up my grant with a loan, and fees were paid. But my parents were always skint and could never afford to pay what was deemed their contribution to me.
Also, the rules at that time meant that even though I had moved out 2 years before, and was married, in my final year, they were still expected to support me. They didnt give me a penny in that year, and I did not expect them to.
In comparison, one person at the same time who was doing a Masters in "Catering" who was stinking rich (in comparison anyways) had a father who's accountant made sure that they never had to pay a penny towards their maintenance. Made me sick
I would however, tend to treat students equally because you cant know the individual circumstances.
Which is why the loan system is better than grants - you don't have to worry about what people can afford, if they say they need it let em borrow it, and if they start earning a decent wage they'll have to pay it back!
But also what you are saying about yourself is pointing out flaws in the way the system is run, not with the system at all. For them to take into account your parents financial status when you have been living away from them and married is plain ridiculous - if they are going to assess peoples circumstances they should at least do it with some semblance of sense!
Hmmm... last time I looked anyone under 18 was legally a child.
Of course Parents circumstances matter.
Yup very idealistic. You could argue under the broad headings you have provided, that any course would be worthy of a full grant and fees paid.
If you are disadvantaged how are you to pay? I couldn't go to University or even College for that matter because my family were poor. I had to put money on the table and contribute to the household income. I could not afford to put myself through University. And from the first year of Secondary School I was top of my class in every subject bar Mathematics for 5 years.Many bright young people are denied further education because they come from a disadvantaged background.
With the status quo, of course, the costs would be too great Spirit, but remember this was an ideal world fantasy, in which case, there would be *vastly* fewer students actually completing university level education.
Also, I suppose, the concern here is to seperate the fiscal situation of the person from the benefit to the nation. What does it matter, if you fund a "rich kid" through university, who then goes on to strengthen the nation's position in genetic engineering, nanotechnology or some other strategically important arena..
Ultimately, a more technically capable workforce benefits us all, in much the same way as free health care at the point of delivery.
The provision I would add, is that anyone wishing to leave the UK within a "payback" period of (eg) 5 Years, would have to pay back the fees and support costs..
so, benefit UK society, it's a grant, do it for your own jollies, it's a loan...
Also, I suppose, the concern here is to seperate the fiscal situation of the person from the benefit to the nation. What does it matter, if you fund a "rich kid" through university, who then goes on to strengthen the nation's position in genetic engineering, nanotechnology or some other strategically important arena..
Ultimately, a more technically capable workforce benefits us all, in much the same way as free health care at the point of delivery.
The provision I would add, is that anyone wishing to leave the UK within a "payback" period of (eg) 5 Years, would have to pay back the fees and support costs..
so, benefit UK society, it's a grant, do it for your own jollies, it's a loan...
Well, we have all these weird differences, I mean, you can get married at 16, and live on your own away from your parents.
Nah man, have a lok at the prospectus of any of the UK Universities/Colleges just now. Dozens of the courses are complete waster bollocks, of no use to man or beast.
Well, if your course is on the supported list, we are back to proper levels of support and free fees. If the course isn't on the list, then you can earn some money, and go back as a mature student, or find someone willing to sponsor you through it.
I can respect that. I was pretty close, and I know my Parents made some prety rough sacrifices so that I could go through Uni.
All debate to one side, I think the situation for students from poor backgrounds is ridiculous, and needs something done about it. Anyone from a poor background is obviouslly going to be scared to death of getitng into huge debt, if they can even find a bank to loan them cash.
Yeah that is so true-but you could argue that any course is valid either intellectually, culturally,spiritually or physically.
:/ Ouch. Come on Wints man - u like the idea of University and Family commitments as a mature student? I don't and if I want to progress I have now got to do it. I wish I had the chance as a youth.
Well... I'm an odd case, I suppose, but I would quite like to go back to Uni, to study something just for interest rather than for a career, but that being said, I wouldn't want to do it and try to juggle family and home at the same time..
Actually, 40% (higher rate) income tax kicks in at ~ £29,000 ( http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/rates/it.htm ) which, when you think about it, is not that much at all. And you an accountant dave. Shame!
And if the government was honest, they'd stop the whole "National Insurance" charade - it is income tax used to fund current expenditure, pure and simple. It is not hypothecated to the NHS or anything else. So basic rate tax is really 32% and top rate tax 50%. More once the NI rates rise after april...
Want me to explain how "Fiscal Drag" is fucking up large numbers of average income earners?
Last edited: