Free Fees vs Means Testing

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

I accept your point, but you could also argue that Ciaran is now in a position where, earning 100,000 a year, he can easily afford the 5,000 given to him by the Government.

Im going to stop you right there, he can also afford to pay more for bread, milk, petrol etc. You cant have price discrimination. Since hes a high earner he should pay the rate of tax that other high earners pay - but people shouldnt be forced to pay for something everyone else gets for free because they can afford it.

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Im going to stop you right there, he can also afford to pay more for bread, milk, petrol etc. You cant have price discrimination. Since hes a high earner he should pay the rate of tax that other high earners pay - but people shouldnt be forced to pay for something everyone else gets for free because they can afford it.

Two ways of looking at it tbh. One is that high earners are being discriminated against, and forced to do something that most people don't do. The other way is that a graduate tax would be something most people would pay, and those earning less get an exemption, a bit like the current system with the registration fee, but it could only apply to the individual and not their parents. Or to put it another way, a bit like OAPs getting free travel while those who are working pay for it. Which of these is the more accurate scenario would depend on what level of income they drew the line at.

While I can acknowledge where you're coming from, the money has to come from somewhere. Raising taxes in general would be no better than this system. At least the 'graduate tax' would only hit those who have benefited from 3rd level education.

Bear in mind that no hard and fast rules for such a system have been drawn up yet. It could well be that people like Ann would still have to pay the tax, but at a smaller percentage rate over a longer period of time. It would still be recouped in the end that way.

Of course it would also help if, when implementing any such system, they looked at disposable income rather than gross income, but I won't hold my breath on that one.

dajaffa

Personally I'm 100% against tuition fees as any actual increase in college funding will be tiny (if any), the money will just be coming from somewhere else. It'll result in some degree (possibly small, but present) of a drop in numbers attending 3rd level, which will eventually mean less funding unless the fees are huge, and that would just result in huge numbers heading to the UK instead as fees there are relatively low.

My personal suspicion is that it is intended to propose the re-introduction of fees, then roll it back to a graduate tax which will be viewed as more acceptable to some people. But a graduate tax would take years until it results in any sort of revenue, and in the meantime colleges will probably suffer serious funding cuts and be left in a poor state.

What was proposed (I think by the HEA) a few years ago was to introduce tax breaks for 3rd level donations. If that had been done it would have resulted in a fair amount of income for the last couple of years. It could still be introduced now, but given the recessive state of the economy, an opportunity has been missed.

If anyone's interested USI are having a demo against fees tomorrow in town: Meet at the Spire at 12:30, then march to the department of education. I know there's a few from UCD already going and if anyone else wants to come feel free to do so.

Pride Fighter

dajaffa wrote: »

What was proposed (I think by the HEA) a few years ago was to introduce tax breaks for 3rd level donations. If that had been done it would have resulted in a fair amount of income for the last couple of years. It could still be introduced now, but given the recessive state of the economy, an opportunity has been missed.

On that point there is tax breaks for third level donations. Last year I worked for UCD raising donations from past pupils. If a person gives more than 250 euro a year the donation is boosted by the lower tax bracket of 20% if the worker is PAYE, ie a donation of 275 is what they College actually gets, if self imployed the worker can claim back the 20% in a tax back so he gets the 25 euro back at the end of the year. If the donation is over 1000 euro a year the same applies but is done at the higher tax bracket of 41%. The campaign raised 250,000 euro.

Stepherunie

Pride Fighter wrote: »

On that point there is tax breaks for third level donations.

There aren't specific tax breaks though, they are in line with those for other things (such as private second level schools), and what was proposed was to have improved, specific ones for 3rd level donations iirc.

Tayto2000

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

but people shouldnt be forced to pay for something everyone else gets for free because they can afford it.

Interesting... how do you feel about the medical card? It's not a perfect analogy but even so... Maybe a 'University Card' for those on lower incomes might be the way forward

Anyone see the Indo today? Looks like the gubbermint suddenly wants to know where all the money is going now that the tap has been turned off...

Stabshauptmann

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Interesting... how do you feel about the medical card? It's not a perfect analogy but even so... Maybe a 'University Card' for those on lower incomes might be the way forward

Anyone see the Indo today? Looks like the gubbermint suddenly wants to know where all the money is going now that the tap has been turned off...

We have a system like the medical card for 3rd level education, its called the maintenance grant.

The imposition of fees on the wealthy and the medical card are not on the same wave length.

Fees are "Positive Punishment", the Medical Card is "Negative Reinforcement".*

Punishment and Reinforcement are not analogous.


And as to how I feel about the medical card and the health system in Ireland in general, I think its badly organised, badly run and I could talk at length about it - but not on this thread.

*Positive means to add something to an environment, and Negative means to take something from the environment. I'm not commenting on whether something is good or bad.