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
-
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.
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.
Its actually getting very annoying that people keep ignoring the fact that you'd pay the fees back after you graduate when you're in employment. Which is completely fair.0 -
Not only would you pay them back, but you'd be paying them back every year at least...0
-
-
And that's the problem right there. BASIC just doesn't cut it, this is not a BASIC issue - it's more complex. Can we give up on simplistic analogising?Dannyboy83 wrote: »[A VERY BASIC ANALOGY]
Of course you're correct. That's blatantly obvious. But as I've said again and again and again (you really haven't read any of this thread have you?) why are you assuming the workforce will be uneducated or unskilled as a result of this. It won't be. So I'll answer by simply saying "Can you show me proof that I am incorrect?"Dannyboy83 wrote: »nobody would come here if the workforce were uneducated or unskilled.
Can you show me proof that I am incorrect?
Wrong. Sorry for using the word wrong so blatantly again (someone took offense last time I did), but if are you implying the current system has full attendance?Dannyboy83 wrote: »Free education = Full attendence
True. Of course. Another obvious point that I agree completely with, but I don't see how this has any bearing on the argument. I want full attendance as much as you do. Why on earth wouldn't I?Dannyboy83 wrote: »Full attendence = more and better jobs... ... I'd rather stay on the upward spiral.
This depends on your definition of "costly". If by "costly" you mean unaffordable then the current system is costly for many.Dannyboy83 wrote: »Costly education = Less than full attendence
To summarise:
- Introducing fees will not make education affordable for anyone for whom it is now unaffordable.
BUT:
- Introducing fees will not make education unaffordable for anyone for whom it is now affordable.
Can anyone tell me those two points are untrue? You may ask then, what's the benefit? The benefit is, less taxpayers money gets spent without incurring any negative effect.0 -
What I mean is what I said in post 81 up there: every year, I repay in tax every penny the state spent on my fees and my sister's fees, twice over; ie. I pay 12 times in tax what the state paid in one year on my fees. And that's only going to rise because that's what happens with college-educated earners on average (that's not a value-based judgement, btw, just an observation of the numbers).Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »What do mean by every year at least?
So you're saying that despite the fact that I'll have paid somewhere around 600-650 years worth of fees by the time I retire, that it's a better idea to demand that my kids take on onerous amounts of debt despite the scandals relating to student loans in both the US and UK?Can't you see how paying back after graduation would in no way have affected you or your sisters situation during your college years?
Yeah, if that's the scheme I'll take my tax money and my kids elsewhere, and you can make up the difference in the tax take for me. The thing about mucking about with educational systems is that you're mucking about with people's kids. And people are generally going to do a damn sight more to protect their kids than they will for other things.0 -
Advertisement
-
What I mean is what I said in post 81 up there: every year, I repay in tax every penny the state spent on my fees and my sister's fees, twice over; ie. I pay 12 times in tax what the state paid in one year on my fees. And that's only going to rise because that's what happens with college-educated earners on average (that's not a value-based judgement, btw, just an observation of the numbers).So you're saying that despite the fact that I'll have paid somewhere around 600-650 years worth of fees by the time I retire, that it's a better idea to demand that my kids take on onerous amounts of debt despite the scandals relating to student loans in both the US and UK?
Vast majority of people aren't paying that much in tax. And thats fraud you're referring to with the scandals. The system I'd propose would be a nationalised one where the students pay back the government for the money the government put toward their education.
If it were the same as the UK, you pay back £3145 per year. You have the option to take out more for college expenses and living costs. Thats not onerous. Most people rack up more than that in credit card debt and personal loans for things they don't need.
It would be better for people who dont want to ask their parents for the €1500 "administration" fees we currently pay0 -
Vast majority of people don't go to college either. Maximising the number going is maximising the amount of tax paid. Give preferencial funding to courses if you wish - science, engineering, medicine, etc, all produce higher tax takes.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »Vast majority of people aren't paying that much in tax.
That's a nice plan; but you're proposing it in Ireland, where scandal is a matter of course. How would you ensure that you prevented scandal in a market that in the US nets 19% returns? How would you ensure that those returns don't become the driving force behind the loans instead of ensuring access of education to all?And thats fraud you're referring to with the scandals. The system I'd propose would be a nationalised one where the students pay back the government for the money the government put toward their education.0 -
With free fees alot of people go to college studying courses they have no interest in.
If people had to pay for their courses they would be more sure of their choice and also be more commited.
Maybe people that get good results like 1h good get free fees or pay half0 -
Why does it not seem like a good idea to me to take a bunch of 18-year-olds who're under enough stress with being told that whatever college decision they make will shape the remaining 60-odd years of their lives, and then tell them that if they make a mistake, it'll have huge financial penalties as well?0
-
There has to consequences for bad decisions otherwise they will continue to be made. Say if you do pick the wrong course and quit after a year, I think any grad tax should take account of this.huge financial penalties as well?
A degree is only a piece of paper to most employees at best a leg in the door. Ask any graduate a couple of years down the road and they will tell you that the dont remember most of the stuff they did in college.shape the remaining 60-odd years of their lives0 -
Advertisement
-
If you pick the wrong course and quit after a year, you've lost a year. Between the time lost (you'd spend less in jail for some pretty serious offences) and the loss of earnings caused by delaying entry to the workplace (you'd pay less in fines for some equally serious offences), you're already looking at serious consequences for what frankly, no business would ever blame on the person involved. Hell, I don't know any 30-year-olds who know precisely where they will be at age 50 (bar those with terminal illnesses). How the heck can you blame someone who's 17 or 18 for getting that kind of decision wrong when everyone and their dog is putting pressure on them over the decision and the information you'd need to make the choice is simply not available to anyone at any level? Could you predict what industry will be the best to seek a job in in four year's time from today?There has to consequences for bad decisions otherwise they will continue to be made. Say if you do pick the wrong course and quit after a year, I think any grad tax should take account of this.
Adding to those existing penalties with even more serious and immediate financial penalties is not just redundant, it's ethically wrong - you're punishing someone twice for making a mistake that we have no idea how to prevent, made while making a decision that we ourselves, with the full benefit of twice as many years, couldn't make any better.
And why the concentrated liability? Where, for example, is the punishment for the career guidance counsellors who gave bad advice to this student? What's their liability? You can't take someone who's put in a position of trust by the school and say they can give bad advice which punishes people with financial penalties without giving them some measure of liability. And there are others who contribute to the decisions made by LC students who'd be getting off scott-free here while you lump a significant debt on the student for a mistake.
I call shenanigans on that assertion. Would you accept someone for a surgeon's role without a relevant degree? A barrister's or solicitor's? An engineer's? You might be able to wing it in IT, assuming you're a natural genius, but I have never, ever met someone that good who didn't go to college anyway.A degree is only a piece of paper to most employees at best a leg in the door. Ask any graduate a couple of years down the road and they will tell you that the dont remember most of the stuff they did in college.0 -
Trying to use the analogies to convey my points in clear circumstances mate.And that's the problem right there. BASIC just doesn't cut it, this is not a BASIC issue - it's more complex. Can we give up on simplistic analogising?
If you use complex analogies, it will obscure the debate, too pedantic.Of course you're correct. That's blatantly obvious. But as I've said again and again and again (you really haven't read any of this thread have you?) why are you assuming the workforce will be uneducated or unskilled as a result of this. It won't be. So I'll answer by simply saying "Can you show me proof that I am incorrect?"
You just need to look back to the two decades before you were born to be honest mate.
I think maybe you've grown up in the affluent Ireland and forget what the realities are.
Well, put it like this - you have to do well in your leaving cert to get sufficient points for the course you want.Wrong. Sorry for using the word wrong so blatantly again (someone took offense last time I did), but if are you implying the current system has full attendance?
And most National Universities now have a large number of non-national students who pay their way. (UCC just started to get them around the time I finished)
I honestly don't know how to explain it in simpler terms tbh mate.True. Of course. Another obvious point that I agree completely with, but I don't see how this has any bearing on the argument. I want full attendance as much as you do. Why on earth wouldn't I?
If you put an obstacle in front of education, some people are guaranteed to fall, no matter how perfect you think the world is.
Well, if businesses cannot get credit in the current climate, and there is a complete restriction on credit altogether, what makes you believe they would be willing to finance a student who is a long term investment?This depends on your definition of "costly". If by "costly" you mean unaffordable then the current system is costly for many.
If all public servants just took a 10% pay cut, where do you assume they will magic the money up from?
I work in the private sector and I barely break even most of the time, I'd never be able to generate the lump sums required.
On a long term basis, as a paye deduction, I can manage though.To summarise:
- Introducing fees will not make education affordable for anyone for whom it is now unaffordable.
BUT:
- Introducing fees will not make education unaffordable for anyone for whom it is now affordable.
I suspect you already understand this but are disagreeing for the sake of argument.
If not, then you clearly do not understand basic accounting.
Again, no offence, but can you not see why I think you're sheltered?
I paid for my ex-girlfriends education for 2 years.
When I broke with her, she didn't have cash to do the 3rd year and the whole thing was a waste.
Here comes another analogy:
If every citizen pays 10 Deutschmarks, but only 20,000 citizens get the Wolkswagon, that 20,000 citizens win every time.
If that 20,000 people (who've never had a job) have to pay 20,000 deutschmarks themselves to get a wolkswagon, x amount of people will not have the money.
Sorry for being rude, but will you for Christ's sake just wise up and accept that life is not black and white?Can anyone tell me those two points are untrue? You may ask then, what's the benefit? The benefit is, less taxpayers money gets spent without incurring any negative effect.
Dream on.
This government will take the same amount of tax either way, it just gives them more cash to put in the Gulfstream or to waste on e-voting machines.
Free education is one of the only things that actually works in this pathetic country.
I'm bowing out of this debate now, because I don't have any more time to waste on this.
Suffice to say, I'll NEVER, EVER vote for somebody who reintroduces college fees.
If Batt O'Keefe offered to reform the banks, reform government waste, legislate against political and financial corruption but he was going to re-introduce Third Level fees.........I would campaign against him.0 -
And as an aside on that point, exactly how many decisions of note do you think an 18-year-old leaving cert student has already made?There has to consequences for bad decisions otherwise they will continue to be made.
And how arrogant is it to demand that they pay for a mistake on the first important decision they ever have to make (in an environment with high pressure and little to no information or support and all of what's there bad); in a nation where we've just turned round to the private sector banks and told them that we'd take the hit for their monumental mistakes (even though there was plenty of information and analysis pointing out the mistake long ago); and where the long-standing rule of political office is that you never, ever, ever admit liability or culpability or resign or take any form of punishment for your mistakes?
Pfft.0 -
And as an aside on that point, exactly how many decisions of note do you think an 18-year-old leaving cert student has already made?
And how arrogant is it to demand that they pay for a mistake on the first important decision they ever have to make (in an environment with high pressure and little to no information or support and all of what's there bad); in a nation where we've just turned round to the private sector banks and told them that we'd take the hit for their monumental mistakes (even though there was plenty of information and analysis pointing out the mistake long ago); and where the long-standing rule of political office is that you never, ever, ever admit liability or culpability or resign or take any form of punishment for your mistakes?
Pfft.
Cracking post mate.0 -
I have no time for FF or the Greens (they really showed their colours when they joined with FF). I'm not inclined to ever vote for either but if they introduce Uni fees I'll never be inclined to do so.
It's bad enough that there are sod all places in university and students have to run the gauntlet of a pointless points system. When fees were abolished they made it slightly easier to get into college; in that if you managed to get the points you didn't have to worry about fees. You still have to find the money to live and study etc.
Given the fact that we're in a massive recession why on earth does the govt. think that introducing fees would be a good idea?
Bring on the general elections!0 -
And how arrogant is it to demand that they pay for a mistake on the first important decision they ever have to make.
An 18 yr old LC student can vote etc so why cant they make a decision on their future. In fact the majority of 18 year olds make this decision easily in the end.
Graduates benefit from higher wages. There should be a small graduate tax.
The quality of 3rd level institutions in this country is a joke. Only one makes the top 100 in the world.
More of the goverment funding on 3rd level needs to go on improving college facilities and giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds a better chance at getting to 3rd level.
A small grad tax over a graduates career is the way to go.0 -
An 18 yr old LC student can vote etc so why cant they make a decision on their future. In fact the majority of 18 year olds make this decision easily in the end.
- 17-year-old LC students (like I was and like a lot of students are) can't vote.
- Voting has less personal impact than this choice has (I don't care if philosophically it's important, it's nowhere near as personal a wallop as choosing college courses is)
- Where's your supporting data to say most of them make the choice easily? I don't remember anyone who didn't agonise over that choice except those who knew they weren't going to get in anywhere. People have committed suicide because of this choice and not getting the 'right' placing. How dare you say it's easy?
What do you think the higher tax band is for? Graduates benefit from higher wages, but also pay higher amounts of tax; both absolutely and relatively. You're talking about adding yet another tax onto that? What's your justification for that?Graduates benefit from higher wages. There should be a small graduate tax.
Because we've consistently cut funding for colleges and called it 'modern thinking'. We've mangled research grant setups so that basic research grants are now only granted for what is applied research; and applied funding goes to commercialisation projects and commercialisation money effectively goes to advertising. We've cut back and back on the amount of money paid per student to the colleges on the quiet, starving the colleges of the funds they need to do the job. TCD is operating at about 60% of the funds it had a decade ago because of that; UCD and the NUI colleges are in similar straits. You advocating that we raise the entry cost because of the status of the colleges, when the funding cuts caused the problem with college status, is nonsensical - it's creating an artificial problem and demanding a course of action be taken to rectify that artificial problem even though it punishes people and damages the country's only real resource.The quality of 3rd level institutions in this country is a joke. Only one makes the top 100 in the world.
Stuff that idea. I am from a disadvantaged background, and your idea is a disincentive to people working to get out of disadvantaged backgrounds. Why bother to work harder to get a more secure job if you have a special tax waiting there to clobber me when I succeed? Tax bands, I can understand that, that applies to everyone across the board from a plumber's apprentice to a surgeon; but a special tax on people who take jobs that need a lot of high-level training? That's... I mean, I can't think of a polite word to describe just how wrong that idea is! It's bringing in legislation to bar people from higher education!More of the goverment funding on 3rd level needs to go on improving college facilities and giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds a better chance at getting to 3rd level.
A small grad tax over a graduates career is the way to go.0 -
I will say now that if there were fees, I would not have been able to go to college.
This is ****ing sick, we're going to be uneducated coming out of this recession meaning we have no chance to build ourselves up.0 -
Graduates benefit from higher wages. There should be a small graduate tax.
If they're earning higher wages, then they're already paying higher income tax without adding an additional tax.There has to consequences for bad decisions otherwise they will continue to be made. Say if you do pick the wrong course and quit after a year, I think any grad tax should take account of this.
Don't free fees apply to only one undergraduate course per student? If somebody fails a year, they have to pay fees to repeat it. If they drop out of a course after a year, then they have to pay for the first year of whichever course they embark on next. There are already consequences for "bad decisions". Do you think that students should be punished twiceover?0 -
A british style top up fee seems like a good idea for Ireland. There is a need for huge investment in 3rd level institutions in Ireland. As we are all well aware this wont be coming from the central government.
Graduates (on the whole) will earn a lot more than those who dont go to university. I feel that it is only fair that graduates would pay a small premium to balance this.
Top up fees do not prevent anybody from going to uni. There is very little outlay of money before entering college, you will only pay the fees when you are in employment post graduation and even then it might only be €5 a week for a few years.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't. We already pay more than non-graduates, on the whole. And we worked very hard to get to that state. We pay a higher amount and we pay a higher percentage of taxes (the honest ones amongst us anyway). Charge us another tax on top of that, and frankly, I'm taking my hard-earned highly portable skillset and leaving and you lot can make up what I was paying, and in ten years when it's all sorted out and you're calling expats home again like we did in the 90s, then I might come back for the right fee (hey, you stiff me, I stiff you, as the saying goes)Graduates (on the whole) will earn a lot more than those who dont go to university. I feel that it is only fair that graduates would pay a small premium to balance this.0 -
Its not a tax. If you went through 4 years of uni just as I did at the expense of the taxpayer you should be in a better position in the labour market than non graduates as a result of the investment the taxpayer made in your further education, it is only just and fair to repay a portion of that through a top up fee.
Another thing, if you up sticks and leave the country you will likely be faced with higher tax rates in whatever country you end up.
And dont give me any crap about the reg fee. Its not big enough for you to be moaning about.0 -
No, it is neither just nor fair. It is, quite simply, a tax practise that punishes those who take on further education, which in this country would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, given that further education is so damn important to our economy.Its not a tax. If you went through 4 years of uni just as I did at the expense of the taxpayer you should be in a better position in the labour market than non graduates as a result of the investment the taxpayer made in your further education, it is only just and fair to repay a portion of that through a top up fee.
I'll repeat myself - I go to college, I work hard and sacrifice to do so and so does my family, I get a job that pays more money, because of this I pay more money in tax both in absolute terms (X% of Y being more than X% of Y-20,000) and in relative terms (41% being higher than 20%). Tax me just for going to college while others who didn't earn more than I do and you are in effect encouraging things like construction booms while discouraging things like doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers, IT workers, etc. And all of those professions are portable. I can be an engineer anywhere, my degree is internationally recognised and my skillset is valuable almost anywhere. The same can be said for all of those professions. Tax me - discriminately - to pay for the gambling debts of the banks and the poor management of people who have acted incompetently (some of whom, ironically, claimed degrees they never had) and I'll just walk. And I wouldn't think I'd be alone on that.
Ah, the spiel about lower tax rates in Ireland than anywhere else in the EU. Thing is, we have one of the lowest direct taxation schemes. On indirect taxes like VAT, and downright illegal taxes like VRT, we don't rate so highly. And I don't think our direct tax rates will stay so low for long. I remember the taxes my father paid in the 80s - do you honestly think if we stay here that we won't get a ducks-eye view of that particular shotgun blast?Another thing, if you up sticks and leave the country you will likely be faced with higher tax rates in whatever country you end up.
It's not the size - it's what it is (namely, it's the end effect of the government starving the colleges of cash, thus reducing their ability to do their job to the point where they start looking at fees, not because they think fees are a good idea, but because they can't think of any other way to get control over their incoming revenue stream).And dont give me any crap about the reg fee. Its not big enough for you to be moaning about.0 -
nhughes100 wrote: »Fees have to come back in, like another Poster I work in 3rd level and the amount of cars & new laptops that students have is unbelieveable. A lot of them will freely admit to using a year or two in college while they wait for the army, gardai or other emergancy service. That or they're on a waiting list for something else. Attendance is shocking. Most of your "registration" fee goes to providing services such as the students union, clubs+socs and subsidising printing/photocopying/library books.
.
I'm in college and I don't have a new car, I can tell you. I'm also not using college to wait around until something better pops up. It's vital that I go to college to get the job I want. I also attend all my classes. And printing/photocopying aren't free in my college- the students pay for it themselves.
Whatever your reasons for bringing back fees, please don't generalize all students and use the 'lazy rich students' line as justification for fees.nhughes100 wrote: »I don't believe in flat fees for all but everyone should make a contribution once they hit a certain salary. Like a lot of students in the early 90's I had nothing in college, got 60quid a month as a grant and probably went to about 2 socials a year and didn't get a crappy car till I was 3 years in the workforce. It'll teach todays students the value of earning something. Colleges don't run on fresh air, if real fees came in, ie to come close to the actual cost of running the college I'd hazard a guess would be around 10-15k a year.
What you described is pretty much my college lifestyle. I'm struggling financially but I'm damn grateful that I'm in college, because I know if fees were introduced it would be very unlikely that I could afford to go at all. Most of today's students do in fact know 'the value of earning something'.0 -
By your logic people who didnt attend college and are in the "higher tax" bracket are paying for college fees they didnt incur.If they're earning higher wages, then they're already paying higher income tax without adding an additional tax.
In most cases the parents cover these fees. Most people of 18 can make this decision. Its in the students interest to know everyting they can about a course before signing up for 4 years.f they drop out of a course after a year, then they have to pay for the first year of whichever course they embark on next. There are already consequences for "bad decisions". Do you think that students should be punished twiceover
In the realworld if you avail of a service and if it isnt for you then you still have to pay.
Why is it that we are always after something for nothing in this country. When people mention 3rd level education its always has the word "free" in front.
People expect politicians and managers to be accountable but then refuse to be so themselves.0 -
I'm in college and I don't have a new car, I can tell you. I'm also not using college to wait around until something better pops up. It's vital that I go to college to get the job I want. I also attend all my classes. And printing/photocopying aren't free in my college- the students pay for it themselves.
Whatever your reasons for bringing back fees, please don't generalize all students and use the 'lazy rich students' line as justification for fees.
What you described is pretty much my college lifestyle. I'm struggling financially but I'm damn grateful that I'm in college, because I know if fees were introduced it would be very unlikely that I could afford to go at all. Most of today's students do in fact know 'the value of earning something'.
Maybe you don't have a new car but I can assure you the percentage of students driving now as opposed to 10 years ago is massively increased. This is crazy considering most colleges are well served by Public transport and are all located in regional population centres.
I never said printing etc was free but it can be subsidised along with other things and your registration fee is usually used for this. Even if the registration fee is increased the cost comes nowhere near how much it actually costs for your college course. Full attendance is very much the exception rather then the rule. If you are struggling financially then it is likely you would be exempt from fees if they came back. I didn't state bring them back for everyone but a free for all is no longer sustainable.
Again don't put words in my mouth, I never said "lazy rich students" so I don't know why you quoted me on it. What I stated was my opinion based on my experience both as a student and as staff, that's over 15 years experience in 3rd level from both sides. Most of todays teenagers/young adults haven't a clue about earning anything. If you are one of the exceptions fair play to you and I wish you well.0 -
Can I pose a question to the readers/posters in this thread who are opposed to fees?I know if fees were introduced it would be very unlikely that I could afford to go at all.
Assuming, hypothetically, that this government could actually organise a piss-up in a brewery, and assuming they actually managed to implement an effective means tested fee-paying system whereby only those who could actually afford to pay fees paid fees, how many of you would change your mind on the issue and support such a system (this is the hypothetical situation where such a system was implemented well)?
Basically I'm trying to weed out peoples motivation for opposing fees - is it blind support for unilateral "free-fees" regardless of it's justification, or is it a more measured reluctance to support a scheme that you believe the government will implement badly?0
Advertisement