Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Third Level Fees
Options
Comments
-
Yes, we all go to private schools and get grinds. hmm, where the f**K are you living?!If the middle class can afford to send their children to private secondary schools and weekly grinds, they can afford the college fees.
.
That's the worst thing they could do. The LC is bad enough for pure 'exam directed learning' as it is.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
1. Fees are already in place (€1500)
2. It would be morally wrong to introduce fees without giving families a warning of at least 3 or 4 years instead of just droping it on them like a bombshell.
3. It is of course the middle class PAYE workers who will suffer as usual. They are already paying enough for this mess.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
because of course a teacher's ability to teach can be measured by the amount of A grades they get. :rolleyes:
get real, you can't base rewards on results, what about the weak student who would generally be capable of ordinary level grades but with the right guidance achieves a D at higher level... those students and students with learning difficulties grades would never be seen as achievements0 -
A LOT of the people I went to college with had parents who were self employed or farmers who self declared for tax and because they had good accountants took advantage of the system so their kids qualified for grants they should not have got.
Almost all of them stayed in one of Daddy's Dublin apartments and they would openly brag about the fact that Daddy 'cooked the books' to get them the grant and free fees. Please don't tell me this lot could not afford to pay fees even on a sliding scale.
In my book they were as bad as dole cheats and tax fiddlers.
I later worked in a university and in the last few years I noticed you couldn't even get a parking space because of the amount of students DRIVING to college.:eek: Straight out of school, they have never worked but they have cars??:rolleyes:
These are the people who will complain about people on the dole being a burden:rolleyes:0 -
3. It is of course the middle class PAYE workers who will suffer as usual. They are already paying enough for this mess.
This line is the ONLY attempted "argument" from the keep fees free side that I've heard. The ONLY one. And to date I have heard noone make any attempt to justify the line. This line is being spouted by F.E.E. and the USI over and over, it's plastered all over their leaflets and it makes precisely zero sense. Please K4t tell me how you have come to this conclusion. Stating it doesn't make it true. If you make an argument you have to back it up.
(P.S. please also read all comments above regarding sliding scales and means tests that have already debunked this line)
Hear hear.These are the people who will complain about people on the dole being a burden0 -
Id imagine the chances of these returning have been going up dramatically in the last few months.
Where are these people?I dont think its a bad idea for the people who can afford it to pay, ie leaving cert students where both parents are working and earning well above the average for example.
I don't know any personally
I believe that was tried, it was called communisim.But surely they cant take free fees away from the people who would otherwise be unable to return to college - kids from very low income families
It didn't work.
They can get a job, I had a job in collegeunemployed people returnind to college as mature students?What do you think, will they bring back fees and if so will everyone be hit or just the people who can afford it?
If they bring back fees, everyone has to be hit.
Otherwise, you'll have a similar system to what is happening in the UK.
The middle class are leaving in their droves for places like Australia, while the sponges leach off an ever smaller and more heavily suffocated middle class.
The day that fees are re-introduced is the day that we close the casket on the Celtic Tiger and return to the economic exodus of the 80s.0 -
Advertisement
-
:eek: I think you may be a little rusty on your definitions of political ideologies. Communism and other forms of socialism are decidedly more extreme, and generally require common ownership and such nonsense. Keynsianism would be closer to the mark I'd say. And that definitely worked.Dannyboy83 wrote: »I believe that was tried, it was called communisim.
Mmm... intelligent response. How long did it take to come up with that. Probably doesn't even warrant a response but hey....Dannyboy83 wrote: »They can get a job, I had a job in college
- You had a part time/summer job in college
- You were most likely aged ~18-25 and relatively fit and healthy
- You had a more modern and fuller education than many
for a start.
Still no explanation/justification for this view... from anyone. Anyone?Dannyboy83 wrote: »If they bring back fees, everyone has to be hit.
My sister is studying in the UK at th mo. Not the best system, not the worst. A whole lot better than the one I went through.Dannyboy83 wrote: »Otherwise, you'll have a similar system to what is happening in the UK.
In the UK? What do you think they're doing over here? That trend has precisely nothing to do with social welfare or college fees.Dannyboy83 wrote: »The middle class are leaving in their droves for places like Australia
"sponges"... nice! Not even going to dignify this kind of ignorance with a proper response.Dannyboy83 wrote: »while the sponges leach off an ever smaller and more heavily suffocated middle class.
That casket is well and truly closed already at this stage. It has nothing to do with fees (or the lack thereof for that matter), and it certainly has nothing to do with "sponges" - no I'm fairly sure it has to do with that crowd up at the other end of the scale.Dannyboy83 wrote: »The day that fees are re-introduced is the day that we close the casket on the Celtic Tiger0 -
Sorry, my previous answer came off a bit rude, didn't intend that.
I am a believer in Keynsianism and supply side economics.
But I believe you have to look further down the chain.
No matter how you present it, college fees will result in less people attending college than a non-fee scenario.
This results in more people sitting on social welfare, earning less and paying less tax.
Due to the EU membership, the economic migrants now take many of the jobs previously performed by students.
No employer is going to take a part time student worker with a hangover, over a full time Eastern European working for his family.
Your badly mistaken mate.That trend has precisely nothing to do with social welfare or college fees.
I've been a member of British Forums since before you went to college.
I can supply you with links on a pm if you like and you can ask British taxpayers for yourself.
The fact is simple, if you give a benefit to one section of society for being deprived and punish another section of society for working hard - you end up with a lot of resentment.
You have to apply it across the board, one way or the other.
I'll give you an example.
When I went to college, my parents earned well so I couldn't get grant money.
My parents didn't have any money to spare tho.
If they had it, they would have given it - family situation prevented it.
My friend was the son of a farmer, who could get grant money.
I mopped floors in Tesco every night until I got into door work and had full time summer jobs while friends went on J1s etc.
I used to go to work, babysitting my college friends, fighting with travellers and putting up with a lot of grief in order to have money to pay bills and get through college.
My pal used to come into the club on the piss with his grant money.
I'd get home late and be knackered, late for college and have to do it again the next day, fitting in study too.
My pal could take it at his ease."sponges"... nice! Not even going to dignify this kind of ignorance with a proper response.
Call it what you like.
I can sit into my car right now and drive for 10mins.
I'll be in an estate full of people who you could offer a job to and they wouldn't take it.
Easier to sit on social and deal drugs, steal cars, sell fake driving licenses.
If you can't accept this, you're beyond ignorant, you're just naieve.
If you live off the money other people have earned, you're a sponge.
If I shared a house with 5 people, 4 of us contributed our income to a joint account but 1 chap chose to lie in bed and live off our money, I'd personally frog march him down to the FAS office.That casket is well and truly closed already at this stage. It has nothing to do with fees (or the lack thereof for that matter), and it certainly has nothing to do with "sponges" - no I'm fairly sure it has to do with that crowd up at the other end of the scale.
We're in a mess but the casket isn't closed. The thing that got Ireland ahead was hte educated workforce.
If we limit our educational opportunities, we are breeding another generation of sponges/low earners/emmigrants.
I would rather pay 4 years for some kid to attend college and bring wealth to this country than to pay for the rest of my life supporting him because our irrational system prevented it.
*** Honestly, the best thing you can do is go talk to British students since they already have this system.
Find out how many of them will have paid off their student loans after 5,10 years?
It may give you a better understanding of the reality of the situation0 -
Sorry, my previous answer also came off a bit rude, didn't intend that either.
1. There is no evidence of this (yes, I'm aware it's not something that's easy to gather statistics on or analyse), nor is there reason to believe this provided a well designed means-testing system is introduced.Dannyboy83 wrote: »No matter how you present it, college fees will result in less people attending college than a non-fee scenario.
2. It may be the case the there may not be an increase in attendance, if the money gained from re-introducing fees is not re-invested in education.
Now, while I know both of my responses there are reliant on things being managed well by our government, something that's not very likely, that would be a matter of campaigning for better management of education, not campaigning for keeping an archaic, wasteful system, regardless of how it's managed.
This quote worries me. Essentially, you clearly are not a believer in the concept of the government assisting those unable to support themselves (the concept behind social welfare). This seems to be mostly due to an unfair sterotype of the unemployed being predominantly lazy and out of work by choice. While I personally think a state-run part-time community employment scheme would in most cases be far better than direct social welfare, the current system is not bad.Dannyboy83 wrote: »The fact is simple, if you give a benefit to one section of society for being deprived and punish another section of society for working hard - you end up with a lot of resentment.
You have to apply it across the board, one way or the other.
Are you sure? €50,000 is the current limit for grant eligibility. Either way, if you thing the grant system's thresholds should be raised, this is more likely to happen if Batt O'Keefe has more money to put into it.Dannyboy83 wrote: »My parents didn't have any money to spare tho.
Don't get me started on farmers!Dannyboy83 wrote: »My friend was the son of a farmer, who could get grant money.
OK. Go drive. I have a feeling if you were to actually do that, you might be surprised.Dannyboy83 wrote: »I can sit into my car right now and drive for 10mins.
I'll be in an estate full of people who you could offer a job to and they wouldn't take it.
A guy I went to school with is on the dole and has been for quite some time (since he dropped out of college). Not a close friend of mine, I haven't seen him in a while but last I checked he sat around doing f'all and "sponged". So yes, I'm well aware that sponges exist; anecdotal evidence is not particularly reliable when you're judging an entire economic demographic though.
My parents live in an estate of the variety mentioned above (both are fully employed - neither are "sponging" any other type of benefit either if you're stereotyping mind is jumping to any other wild conclusions), and I guarantee if you drove your car and offered same to any of their neighbours who are unemployed (of which there's surprisingly few that I'm aware of considering the current "recession") they'd jump at it. I guarantee it. But again, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Try global statistics: Denmark has the highest welfare expenditure of any country in the world, and the lowest unemployment in Europe.. a bit of a bizarre statistic I know but hey...
Hmmm... wow. That's a lot of people you're calling naïve.Dannyboy83 wrote: »If you can't accept this, you're beyond ignorant, you're just naieve.
Not an over simplified analogy at all.Dannyboy83 wrote: »If I shared a house with 5 people, 4 of us contributed our income to a joint account but 1 chap chose to lie in bed and live off our money, I'd personally frog march him down to the FAS office.
The thing that got Ireland ahead was low corporate taxes attracting multinationals - the least reliable thing to base an economy on might I add as the same multinationals can now simply up and leave. But hey, Charlie Haughey went and gave away all our natural resources in exchange for some french shirts - what can you do?Dannyboy83 wrote: »The thing that got Ireland ahead was hte educated workforce.
Agreed but irrelevant. Again, you've not given any evidence fees will reduce entry into education - I would like to see the money from fees reinvested which would DEFINITELY increase access and improve not limit educational opportunies - leaving "free fees" will cause these opportunities to simply stagnate.Dannyboy83 wrote: »If we limit our educational opportunities, we are breeding another generation of sponges/low earners/emmigrants.
Our irrational system will not prevent anyone from lower-class backgrounds entering education (unless you're implying Fintan from Dalkey won't be able to get to U.C.D. because the fees are too expensive).Dannyboy83 wrote: »I would rather pay 4 years for some kid to attend college and bring wealth to this country than to pay for the rest of my life supporting him because our irrational system prevented it.
My sister is a student in Britain. The British system is not means tested.Dannyboy83 wrote: »Honestly, the best thing you can do is go talk to British students since they already have this system.0 -
Sorry, my previous answer also came off a bit rude, didn't intend that either.
1. There is no evidence of this (yes, I'm aware it's not something that's easy to gather statistics on or analyse), nor is there reason to believe this provided a well designed means-testing system is introduced.
I disagree strongly on two points
1) Any restrictions will lead to less numbers.Remove universality of a scheme and it doesnt matter what you do you will end up with less numbers.
One example off the top of my head
Assume they use a parents income to judge eligablity a la the grants system and say the parent actually wont pay for the 3rd level fees.Where does that leave the potential student?
What safeguard can you place to protect someone from that AND that cant be easily circumvented AND that doesnt add restrictive methods(Paperwork,interviews, reportS) to prove it.
2)Well designed? By this government?
I dont see how an increase in attendance could happen when you withdraw a universal scheme for the fees in the 1st place.2. It may be the case the there may not be an increase in attendance, if the money gained from re-introducing fees is not re-invested in education.Are you sure? €50,000 is the current limit for grant eligibility. Either way, if you thing the grant system's thresholds should be raised, this is more likely to happen if Batt O'Keefe has more money to put into it.
Last time i looked it was 40k.. *goes to look*
2007 figures give the full grant and full student fees with under 4 kids as being 40k. There are various increments up to 50 but you loose benifits on the way up
Thats 2 parents on 20k each and hope little jimmy doesnt have a part time job either or else that counts to the 40k. ( Been caught in that situation myself)
Min wage a year is about 18k( based on a 39 hour week) so if they work a few more house in the week they will be over that threshold.
Batt O Keefe wont have more money to put into it. This about cost saving not redeployment of resources.Again, you've not given any evidence fees will reduce entry into education - I would like to see the money from fees reinvested which would DEFINITELY increase access and improve not limit educational opportunies - leaving "free fees" will cause these opportunities to simply stagnate.
Its simple economics. If you charge for something then less people will use it then if it was free.
It doesnt matter how well you design a system you will always catch people out and the implementation of the scheme is open to manipulation.
Why not apply the same logic and reasoning to 2nd and primary level?
Apologies to anyone if they have replied to my earleir series of point. Im only getting back to this thread now.0 -
Why not just extent the logic to other 18 year olds. If my parents are rich do i get taxed at a higher rate? Certainly rich parents do (usually) help their adult children but why only charge the 18 year olds who go to university based on their parents income? Why not also those who work?
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here.
Oh i think i see it. Not sure how its related to that point about extending it back to primary and secondary though.
That would be a bit unfair. I think that if you are 18 then you should be taxed/benifits on your own merit rather then asking for your parents p60.0 -
Advertisement
-
That would be a bit unfair. I think that if you are 18 then you should be taxed/benifits on your own merit rather then asking for your parents p60.
Right... what parent who could afford to put their kids through college wouldn't? Honestly. It's possible, but you have to admit it's a fairly extreme tangential case you're talking about here.Assume they use a parents income to judge eligablity a la the grants system and say the parent actually wont pay for the 3rd level fees.Where does that leave the potential student?
"Restrictions" is exactly the wrong word to use here. It's not the imposition of anything. They're stopping the use of middle-class taxpayers money to fund Fintan's education. Where's does restriction of anything come into it.Any restrictions will lead to less numbers.
Wrong. Unilaterally wrong. Universality by it's own definition inevitably causes inequality in any multi-tier scheme/system/society. In fact the only way universality could work in a scheme is if everyone was genuinely socially and economically equal to begin with, i.e. never. The only way you can increase numbers is to increase access, do that by reducing inequality, do that by removing universality. We are not all the same, and the scheme cannot function well by assuming we all are.Remove universality of a scheme and it doesnt matter what you do you will end up with less numbers.
Agreed. The one point you make I agree on. But a badly designed system with potential is better than a system with no potential. I'm talking about moving to a place where we at least have leverage to lobby the government for increased equality of access in 3rd level education, where the current scheme systemically denies any possibility of equality of access. It's physically impossible, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that can be done with the current scheme to bring this about. At least without it there'll be that possibility, good government or not.Well designed? By this government?... ... Batt O Keefe wont have more money to put into it. This about cost saving not redeployment of resources.
OK. How many kids with parents on over 150k (the number Batt has stated) will be denied an education if fees are re-introduced? Tbh I think he should lower that to 100k, and introduce a sliding scale after that, but he's not.Its simple economics. If you charge for something then less people will use it then if it was free.0 -
skipping point 1 because as K-9 has pointed out it supports the case for fees
I fail to see how.
I see K9s response as a arguement to nuke the registration fees as well as they are creating another barrier to 3rd level.2. - Firstly, secondary is mostly compulsory. 3rd level is not. That's one point that has been made by many.
However personally (not sure all would agree), I would say yes. Why not "go right down the list with the "They can afford to pay" arguement"? I mean you don't see government ministers/CEOs of large companies turning up at the dole office do you?
3rd level isnt but if you really want to build a "smart" economy or whatever buzzword the government wishes to use then it needs to be treated as such.
I disagree. Some scheme should be universal by their very nature and should re recouped by central taxation. If those rates are too low then that should be looked at as well.
Rich people pay taxes as well they should get the same services3. - This point is useless as it assumes fees for the rich would somehow result in less people going through 3rd level. I see no justification for this view.
Simple economics. Start charging for something and less people will use it.
Doesnt matter how well you design a scheme(And think this government is able?) you will always either catch people out or leave the scheme open to manipulation
Lets call it point 3-2. I already made it in this post with the buzzword economy4. - whoops5. - " If they take money from the fees section it will not go back into the education system" - it probably won't, it might even go into a bankers pocket via "recapitalisation" at this rate. But how is that any different from it going towards paying that same bankers childrens' college fees? What's the difference. At least if fees are introduced there's some slim chance the money may go towards something worthwhile within the governments budget, in education or otherwise, instead of the current situation where we KNOW it's being wasted on subsidising the rich.
Or it could be used to pay the fees of a McDonalds worker who earns min wage and works an extra couple of hours a a week who would be above the threshold on the grants scheme.
You dont know.6. - Again (like point 3) you are jumping to the wild conclusion that this will decrease access to 3rd level. And still no attempt to justify this.
I thought people would have a basic grasp of economics 101.
If you charge for something then less people will use it then if it was free.
I dont know how else to put it.
How many people take a metro newspaper in the morning? If they started charging 20 cent for it do you think circulation would increase or decrease?
If we further accept the point that the money wont make it back to the education system(accepting your silm possibilty line) then it makes the situation even worse by introducing a barrer(fees) and not even attempting to redress it by means of a fairer grant system because there wont be any money for it!7. - Sorry I don't understand your last point.
Home choice loan scheme?
Go google for the site and be horrified. Its the government sub prime mortagage scheme for new houses only. They set aside close to a billion in the last budget for it.
You missed one
2)Penny-wise pound foolish.
People who are college educated tend on average to earn more then people who aren't.
If you accept that point then they will pay more taxes over their life time then someone who doesnt go to 3rd level.0 -
Right... what parent who could afford to put their kids through college wouldn't? Honestly. It's possible, but you have to admit it's a fairly extreme tangential case you're talking about here.
Its actually not as extreme as you think.
Parent may not be in the country.
Parent may be estranged.
Parent may be a moron.
Parent might be high earner but unable to afford due to other costs(legal, mortages etc etc)
The point is that no matter how well you design a sheme you will always end up with people stuck in these what ifs and any saftey mechanism do deal with that would be open to abuse.
Currently a free fees scheme exists."Restrictions" is exactly the wrong word to use here. It's not the imposition of anything. They're stopping the use of middle-class taxpayers money to fund Fintan's education. Where's does restriction of anything come into it.
Remove that and you are imposing a new barrier which restricts access because previously to that people would have had been able to access it.
I stand by my use of the word.,
And i think its semantics anywayWrong. Unilaterally wrong. Universality by it's own definition inevitably causes inequality in any multi-tier scheme/system/society. In fact the only way universality could work in a scheme is if everyone was genuinely socially and economically equal to begin with, i.e. never.
Then by the that logic every single scheme which has universality in it should be removed?
Primary and secondary come to mind. Leave the point about them being complusory to the side for the moment because if you really believe what you just wrote you should want those changed as well.
How about the Gardai?Or the Fire service?Ambulances? Or public patients in the hospital?
P60s should not be a requirement to access any of the above. Hit them on the higher tax rates when you want to make the money back off them.
Use of the word "Wrong" doesnt actually make it so. Doesnt matter how many times you use it.
You werent a memeber of the PDs were you? I ask only because of your view on universality.The only way you can increase numbers is to increase access, do that by reducing inequality, do that by removing universality. We are not all the same, and the scheme cannot function well by assuming we all are.
Correct<edit Well not about the removing univerality part>.And do you know what a major componet in inequality was previous to 1994? The couple of grand a year you needed to pay to access it.
So the Government removed that finanical inequality and improved access to it.Agreed. The one point you make I agree on. But a badly designed system with potential is better than a system with no potential.
I disagree that the current system has no potential. The problem is that Universities started with a small charge and have ramped it over the years in the form of the registration fee which has created another barrier in itself.
The free fees scheme pays for the 1st undergraduate degree of any Irish citizen in the state as long as they dont have to repeat a year.
That is a pretty soild foundation of a scheme right there however its badly let down by the grants scheme as well as the 3rd levels trying to milk every cent out of the studentOK. I'll take that point on board. Now, tell me, how many kids with parents on over 150k (the number Batt has stated) will be denied an education if fees are re-introduced? Tbh I think he should lower that to 100k, and introduce a sliding scale after that, but he's not.
They mooted this 6 years ago and they they claimed that amount of money they would save from restricting it to 100k and above wouldnt be enough to make it worthwhile implementing. This is when Noel "E-Voting Machine "Dempsey was minister for education though so i dont know much faith you have in his figures.
That year they jumped the registration Fees 70% and this year they plan to jump them 50%(Deflation ... yeah right!).
If they start introducing income limits then those limits can and will be changed at the drop of a minister pen and to be quite franky i do not trust them based on what they have done to date with 3rd level grants.
My counter to that is that the people earning that kind of money are already paying huge amounts of income tax on the higher rate and their kids when they leave college will also pay tax rates at the higher rate so long term they will get more then the inital investment back.
The view i am taking on this is that the free fees scheme is a natural progression of the development of the people of the state.
In the 1930s they put it in the constitution that primary education should be provided by the state
In the 1960s they provided for free second level education
Both of these are now taken for granted.
In the 1990s they introduced the free fees for 3rd level
Do we really want to step back a level?0 -
I fail to see how.
I see K9s response as a arguement to nuke the registration fees as well as they are creating another barrier to 3rd level.
The country can't afford free fees, especially now, so the registration fees will rise. The fairness of that is irrelevant really, because the 3rd level sector is underfunded and this is a soft touch to get fees. If you want to keep free fees be prepared for the registration fee to rise.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
#71
Agent J
Oh i think i see it. Not sure how its related to that point about extending it back to primary and secondary though.
That would be a bit unfair. I think that if you are 18 then you should be taxed/benifits on your own merit rather then asking for your parents p60.
If you charge an an adult for education based on their parents income you should also also charge them for medical costs and not provide them with social welfare. If parents income for an adult is significant for education then it should be significant for other items of state aid/taxation as well.K-9
The country can't afford free fees, especially now, so the registration fees will rise. The fairness of that is irrelevant really, because the 3rd level sector is underfunded and this is a soft touch to get fees. If you want to keep free fees be prepared for the registration fee to rise.
Whether you have to pay for college through a registration fee or a fee fee there is not much difference. Fairness is not irrelevant if it was there is not much point discussing politics it would just be a Tyranny forum. I think you are right that fees will increase.0 -
If you charge an an adult for education based on their parents income you should also also charge them for medical costs and not provide them with social welfare. If parents income for an adult is significant for education then it should be significant for other items of state aid/taxation as well.
Whether you have to pay for college through a registration fee or a fee fee there is not much difference. Fairness is not irrelevant if it was there is not much point discussing politics it would just be a Tyranny forum. I think you are right that fees will increase.
Its not fair! LOL
As for parents income, it is counted for Health and SW if living at home, though I see your point that the grant method is different.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
@Agent J on post #73
Answering point 2:
No scheme should be universal - universality creates inequality in all multi-tier systems (as I've already said)Some scheme should be universal by their very nature
Answering point 3 and 6:
This economics theory you seem to love bandying around only applies to the very simplest of situations (so definitely 101 then) - this is far from that. A little bit of a breakdown:Simple economics... ... I thought people would have a basic grasp of economics 101.
If you charge for something then less people will use it then if it was free.
(a) College is thought by most to be far more crucial and necessary than reading the metro => the compulsion to pay for it would be far greater.
(b) Sociologically, those from more wealthy economic backgrounds are more likely to necessitate/place higher importance in 3rd level education.
(c) Given the option to pay or abstain, the demographic most likely to pay is at the top of the economic scale, those least likely at the bottom.
Charging those who are (1) most compelled and (2) least likely to abstain from having to pay will not take anyone out of education.
Breaking it down with regards redistribution of funds:
1. Introduce fees and redistribute funds in grants system - access to education increases
2. Introduce fees and redistribute funds in other areas of education - access to education... may, may not increase, depending on the area.
3. Introduce fees and redistribute funds in other areas of economy - access to education remains static, economy may improve
I see no negative.
Of course. I agree wholeheartedly. What's your point? Unless you're implying that fees will take people out of education as per your "economy 101", in which case you really need to move on to 102.. maybe 103.People who are college educated tend on average to earn more then people who aren't.
If you accept that point then they will pay more taxes over their life time then someone who doesnt go to 3rd level.
@Agent J on post #73
Of those 4 parent, I believe 3 are in some way accounted for by the current grants scheme - the 4th is a moron.Its actually not as extreme as you think.
While I accept that, and the number of people who are "stuck" now with the current scheme could I believe be reduced. That might not happen with fees reintroduced, but it DEFINITELY won't happen with "free-fees". Also, the number of people "abusing" the system will obviously be lopped off by thousands (i.e. Fintan is currently abusing the system). At least with fees, those abusing the system will have to figure out some clever loophole or exploit, as opposed to now where Fintan doesn't even have to put any effort into abusing the system - he just goes to college, pays nothing and goes on the piss on his "grant money" (out of daddy's pocket) while you mop the floor.no matter how well you design a sheme you will always end up with people stuck
Who? Who are these people?Remove that and you are imposing a new barrier which restricts access because previously to that people would have had been able to access it.
I find that question quite odd. Especially from someone who seems to have a problem with the idea of social welfare, something which epitomises the opposite of universality (or would you have CEOs and government ministers drawing dole?), and not the type of concept I personally would associate with the PDs. No, I'm pretty sure even distribution of wealth and cost is a fairly socialist ideal actually.You werent a memeber of the PDs were you? I ask only because of your view on universality.
What the government did increased access, but it was not the universality of their action that did this.So the Government removed that finanical inequality and improved access to it.
They removed fees for those who couldn't afford them - increasing access? yes.
They removed fees for those who could afford them - increasing access? no; superfluous and a massive waste of taxpayers money? yes.
Your proposals for improvements (a) can all happen with fees reintroduced and (b) all require additional funding.I disagree that the current system has no potential
I don't know the accuracy of this, but the Batt claims he'll get over half a billion from fees for over 150k (if that's true, he'd get a whole lot more from fees for over 100k)they claimed that amount of money they would save from restricting it to 100k and above wouldnt be enough to make it worthwhile implementing
Nine of the 20 richest people in the country pay no tax whatsoever. For example. Not true of all of course, but I'd wager there are more abusers than there are of social welfare and the grants system combined.people earning that kind of money are already paying huge amounts of income tax
I agree. It is part of the progression. First we had fees for all, then they introduced the blunt simplistic tool of "free-fees" - universality being naturally blunt and non-discerning, tarring all with the same brush.The view i am taking on this is that the free fees scheme is a natural progression of the development of the people of the state.
The next step of an evolving society is to become more complex and discerning and introduce the finer sharper more focused system of means tested fees.
@K-9
That's a fairly short sited view to be fair. Reintroducing fees is about increasing fairness, not despite it. Otherwise, on the registration fee, I agree.K-9 wrote:The fairness of that is irrelevant really0 -
OK. Go drive. I have a feeling if you were to actually do that, you might be surprised.
A guy I went to school with is on the dole and has been for quite some time (since he dropped out of college). Not a close friend of mine, I haven't seen him in a while but last I checked he sat around doing f'all and "sponged". So yes, I'm well aware that sponges exist; anecdotal evidence is not particularly reliable when you're judging an entire economic demographic though.
My parents live in an estate of the variety mentioned above (both are fully employed - neither are "sponging" any other type of benefit either if you're stereotyping mind is jumping to any other wild conclusions), and I guarantee if you drove your car and offered same to any of their neighbours who are unemployed (of which there's surprisingly few that I'm aware of considering the current "recession") they'd jump at it. I guarantee it. But again, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Try global statistics: Denmark has the highest welfare expenditure of any country in the world, and the lowest unemployment in Europe.. a bit of a bizarre statistic I know but hey...
Agreed but irrelevant. Again, you've not given any evidence fees will reduce entry into education - I would like to see the money from fees reinvested which would DEFINITELY increase access and improve not limit educational opportunies - leaving "free fees" will cause these opportunities to simply stagnate.
Our irrational system will not prevent anyone from lower-class backgrounds entering education (unless you're implying Fintan from Dalkey won't be able to get to U.C.D. because the fees are too expensive).
No offence intended but you come across as very sheltered.
Where did you grow up?
Honestly mate, I wish the country worked like that.0 -
Try global statistics: Denmark has the highest welfare expenditure of any country in the world, and the lowest unemployment in Europe.. a bit of a bizarre statistic I know but hey...
From chatting to people from there and Sweden, they mentioned to me that the official unemployment figure is nothing like the reality because of how free education + payment type deals take people out of the official unemployment statistics.
Have never looked at it in detail or anything but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some massaging of numbers in this way. Politicians of all nationalities tend to pick measures that capture the rosier of pictures if possible.0 -
For kicks, I worked it out the other day. When I was an undergrad, "free fees" came in going into my third year. Because they did, and only because they did, my sister got to go to college (we earned too much to get a grant, but not enough to comfortably send one person to college, and not enough to send two people at once at all). End result, my sister and I graduated, got jobs earning more than we would have had we left after the LC, and now pay taxes.El Stuntman wrote: »student loans are the way forward imo; make them take direct responsibility for their own education.
In 2008, I paid enough money in tax to cover every penny ever spent by the state on my fees and on my sister's fees for all our years in college, twice over. She paid enough money in tax to do the same thing. And as we age and gain seniority in our respective careers, our earnings increase. So for an investment in us as college students, we're providing a return at present of 300% and that's going to rise every year for the next 35 years at least.
So before you go thinking of "free fees" as some sort of charity, would you mind doing the math comparing the amount of tax paid into the exchequer after college and the amount of tax paid without college? And maybe factor in there some way of coping with the fact that the single, sole, unique resource Ireland produces is college graduates? Because it's getting annoying listening to people who don't see anything past the next quarter's figures, quite frankly.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, when I went to university in the 1990s, my parents had to pay my fees. We were apparently too well off to qualify for a grant :rolleyes: What galled me at the time was how self-employed people were poor enough to get the full grant for their kids but miraculously found the money to buy a house for their kids to live in when they were studying.
I think with the way things are, it's inevitable that fees are going to come back. It's going to be tough for the people who will have to shell out more for their kids but if they want their kids to go to 3rd level, the money will be found.0 -
I think people are getting too much into the technicalities of this.
Fianna Fail say that fees will only be reintroduced on the wealthy - never mind the fact that, if that is the case, children should not be punished because of how much their parents earn - We all know Fianna Fail can't organise a piss-up in a brewery, they will eventually lower the threshold of 100000, down to 90000, then to 75000 and quite soon, most people won't be able to afford it. I would be all for this if it wasn't Fianna Fail doing it. Thats why I'm so against it - they are lying scum (particularly Batt O Keefe)0 -
The people who can't afford fees will get grants and the self/employed and the wealthy will have no problem paying fees or cooking their books. Don't forget, it happened all through the 80s.This line is the ONLY attempted "argument" from the keep fees free side that I've heard. The ONLY one. And to date I have heard noone make any attempt to justify the line. This line is being spouted by F.E.E. and the USI over and over, it's plastered all over their leaflets and it makes precisely zero sense. Please K4t tell me how you have come to this conclusion. Stating it doesn't make it true. If you make an argument you have to back it up.
.
The only people who it will really hit is the PAYE middle income workers.
Only families on combined incomes of over €150,000 should be made pay fees at the very least. Absolute disgrace that fees are even being talked about after the public sector pension levy/ and the job cuts in the private sector.0 -
That's for sure. As I said in the above post, my parents had to pay my fees in the early-mid 1990s. I don't know exactly how much they were earning but it wasn't an awful lot by any means. We certainly weren't swanning around in SUVs or going on foreign holidays.
If fees come back (and I'm pretty certain they will be coming back) I'd say the wage threshold won't be too high. I don't know what the average industrial wage is now but I bet anyone earning it will be paying those fees. The inequity of it will be yet again that anyone in the PAYE system will be caught by the short and curlies.0 -
Bringing back fee's, if only for high earning parents, means that child's education is at the whim of a parent.
Good point.
What happens when a parent disagrees with Junior's choice of course: "I'll pay if you study computer science but I'm not forking out for psychology?"
Legally, I don't believe that anybody over the age of 18 can oblige their parents to support them financially, even if they are in full time education (except in cases of separation where child support is agreed upon for longer) so what happens to those whose parents earn over the income limit but who aren't prepared to pay their fees?0 -
You, like the entire F.E.E. lobby are basing this on the assumption that we're going back to the old way (Firetrap and K4t also base their above posts entirely on this assumption). When Batt O'Keefe re-introduces fees, it will not affect families or students who are in the demographic you were in.When I was an undergrad, "free fees" came in going into my third year. Because they did, and only because they did, my sister got to go to college (we earned too much to get a grant, but not enough to comfortably send one person to college, and not enough to send two people at once at all). End result, my sister and I graduated, got jobs earning more than we would have had we left after the LC, and now pay taxes.
thebigcheese22 is the only one here making a valid point - yes, it is likely that the 150k threshold will, in time, be reduced. And this is precisely what we should be opposing. If you believe that a fee-paying system with a high threshold can work - don't oppose it because you fear the threshold will lower, support it and oppose the lowering of said threshold. This kind of fear of Fianna Fáil's incompetence, while clearly warranted, is not an excuse to support and archaic wasteful system which (like far too many of our systems) favours the rich.
Hmmm... I'll try not to get too offended, but it'd be a little easier not to if you're post had any kind of contribution to the debate, rather than a comment on how sheltered I apparently am.Dannyboy83 wrote:No offence intended but you come across as very sheltered.0 -
Hmmm... I'll try not to get too offended, but it'd be a little easier not to if you're post had any kind of contribution to the debate, rather than a comment on how sheltered I apparently am.
I'm trying to contribute points, as are many others, but the points are falling on deaf ears unfortunately.
Believe what you choose to believe. Paint whatever picture you like.
The cold reality is that by re-introducing fees, you're removing from a group of society, the ability to improve themselves and progress.
(This is assuming that the government were actually able to manage a piss up in a brewery, which clearly, they cannot).
Say what you like about corporate tax rates, but nobody would come here if the workforce were uneducated or unskilled.
Can you show me proof that I am incorrect?
Free education = Full attendence
Full attendence = more and better jobs
more and better jobs = more tax revenue, less social expendiute, better standard of living, more prosperous children
Its a cyclical trend.
I'd rather stay on the upward spiral.
Alternative:
Costly education = Less than full attendence, long term education debts, family disasters and defaults
Less than full attendence = less high paying jobs, more low paying jobs, greater social burden, less world class companies
less high paying jobs and worse jobs = less tax revenue, greater social expenditure, more emmigration, worse standard of living, less prosperous children
[A VERY BASIC ANALOGY]
Put a means tested turnstyle into Croke Park. Inevitably people will get shafted and some people will lie and get away with murder, big delays, administration cock ups, bla bla etc. etc.
Remove the turnstyle so everybody can get in, you have full attendance at the stadium.
Why complicate something that isn't complicated?0 -
In that example, who's going to pay for the stadium and the cost of maintaining and daily-basis running the stadium?Dannyboy83 wrote: »Remove the turnstyle so everybody can get in, you have full attendance at the stadium.
Why complicate something that isn't complicated?0 -
It's not the best analogy, but it does show that sometimes the nonintuitive thing achieves goals faster.In that example, who's going to pay for the stadium and the cost of maintaining and daily-basis running the stadium?
BTW, looking at the third-level education fees problem, the 'stadium' is paid for by our taxes, and the sum our taxes provides is higher if more of us are better-qualified, and that happens if more of us could go to college.
If the choice is free fees or grants, the correct answer is both, because unless you have an oil well in your back yard you've not been telling us about, college graduates are one of our chief (if not our only) natural resources.0 -
Advertisement
-
In that example, who's going to pay for the stadium and the cost of maintaining and daily-basis running the stadium?
The same person whos been paying all along mate.
We're only likely to see tax increases anyway, and wage reductions, devaluations or whatever.
You know well that this government are beyond double taxation (think about the multiples of tax you pay for your car).
If we sold those government jets, we could make a start.0
Advertisement