3rd Level fees a consideration by Fianna Fail

33% God

Breezer wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a massive tax hike to solve our present economic woes. It was a long-term idea, in response to your "TAXES" comment.

I get very irritated when people (in general, I'm not attacking you here), confronted with the reality that there is a much greater emphasis put on society than on personal wealth in countries such as Sweden, constantly retort that taxes are higher in these countries, as if taxes are the world's greatest evil. If used properly, higher taxes can be of great benefit to a society. I would much rather have a functioning health (or, indeed, education) system than a BMW, and would be quite willing to pay much higher taxes in order to achieve that.

+1

Breezer

Breezer wrote: »

I would much rather have a functioning health (or, indeed, education) system than a BMW, and would be quite willing to pay much higher taxes in order to achieve that.

Join the club.

Unfortunately, freedom of mobility of labour, and a lack of opportunities within Ireland would mean that if taxes were increased considerably, in order to prop up the Govt finances, we would see widescale emigration, which could actually hurt our tax receipts!

Personally, I'd be all for fantastic public services, at a cost to PAYE workers before they even realise it. But we could not cope with the implications of this.

Bubs101

Breezer wrote: »

I get very irritated when people (in general, I'm not attacking you here), confronted with the reality that there is a much greater emphasis put on society than on personal wealth in countries such as Sweden, constantly retort that taxes are higher in these countries, as if taxes are the world's greatest evil. If used properly, higher taxes can be of great benefit to a society. I would much rather have a functioning health (or, indeed, education) system than a BMW, and would be quite willing to pay much higher taxes in order to achieve that.

Irish people are too materialistic and would never vote in a welfare state so I don't see what you expect the government to do to implement it

machintoshlover

Why do people feel they are entitled to a free third level education? I would generally support the reintroduction of fee's as long as it is implemented in a fair way i.e. something like the student been given an interest free loan that only gets repaid once the person has graduated and is working. This loan arrangement would be fair on all students and provide everyone with the opportunity to go to college, whats more is that with the student paying for the fee's themselves they should be more motivated/concentrated on their studies.

I don't think the reintroduction of fee's should be rushed in as a short fire measure to help correct the public finances. An examination of the third level system in Ireland should be undertaken to help determine how our third level system contributes to our economy and society. Policy makers should decide what exactly are the objectives of our third level system and should then decide on how to structre our third level system to achieve these objectives. I certainly think a review of where our third level system is heading is needed. In short the re-introduction of fee's should be part of a larger reform of third level and only done when there is a proper strategy and the future direction of where our third level system is decided upon.

Apologies for grammar/spelling mistakes Im very hungover!

Fad

machintoshlover wrote: »

I don't think the reintroduction of fee's should be rushed in as a short fire measure to help correct the public finances.

I dont think most people actually know how much goes in to free fee's, <1% of the budget isnt really that much, much like politicians taking a pay cut, it would sort of deflect from the major issues.

Dont rush it anyway!:)
I'll be in next year and hopefully all I'll be hit with is the increased reg fee.

esharknz

machintoshlover wrote: »

Why do people feel they are entitled to a free third level education? I would generally support the reintroduction of fee's as long as it is implemented in a fair way i.e. something like the student been given an interest free loan that only gets repaid once the person has graduated and is working. This loan arrangement would be fair on all students and provide everyone with the opportunity to go to college, whats more is that with the student paying for the fee's themselves they should be more motivated/concentrated on their studies.

Yeah, that's how I had it (in NZ). What a relief it was to me as previously we were charged 7% on everything (nice to see my loan balance go down, not up). It is repaid once someone is working.

They had an increase in people leaving the country so dangled the interest free "carrot" for those in the country to alleviate this.

One positive thing I found with fees is that those students who had to pay seemed to be more motivated than those who had parents paying for them (even some of them took out loans for the lifestyle).

I've since paid my loan off entirely, but completely sympathise with those who may have families and need that money (10% above $19K is taken)

Breezer

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately, freedom of mobility of labour, and a lack of opportunities within Ireland would mean that if taxes were increased considerably, in order to prop up the Govt finances, we would see widescale emigration, which could actually hurt our tax receipts!

There is a law of diminishing returns, but to to my knowledge (and bear in mind that I'm not an economist), it's several percentage points higher than our current higher rate, and significantly higher than our standard rate.

Bubs101 wrote: »

Irish people are too materialistic and would never vote in a welfare state so I don't see what you expect the government to do to implement it

There's a couple of problems with this statement.

Firstly, Irish people have only become materialistic within the last number of years, due to us getting used to the creature comforts brought by the Celtic Tiger. Now that all the money has suddenly dried up, I would be willing to bet that a large number of people, particularly those living on borrowed money, have become very disillusioned with the idea of prizing material wealth above good public services. Do I have proof of this? Not concrete proof, but the most popular party in Ireland according to opinion polls is the one that is advocating increased tax, and has been for some time. The party seeing the biggest increase in its support is the one that has previously advocated higher taxes (although it's currently being somewhat coy about it), and has always advocated investment in public services (although I have my reservations about how close it is to the trade union movement). The party recently wiped off the political landscape is the one that has most vigourously pursued a "low tax, small government" agenda, and the one seeing a freefall in its support is the larger party that went along with it. We'll see in a few years whether this shift in attitude is purely due to mass panic or if it's something more permanent.

Secondly, the current government has become very fond of telling us that it received a mandate from the people in 2007, therefore it can bring in whatever changes it sees fit. So I don't buy the argument that its hands are tied in this regard. But like I said, I don't see this as an immediate solution to our current problems, more as part of the reform that will have to take place in order to ensure we don't get into this situation again.

Stabshauptmann

Tom65 wrote: »

In Sweden the students have no fees and are given €250 a month for going to college.

And how do you think Sweden affords this?

"Since the late 1960s, Sweden has had the highest tax quota (as percentage of GDP) in the industrialized world, although today the gap has narrowed and Denmark has surpassed Sweden as the most heavily taxed country among developed countries. Sweden has a two step progressive tax scale with a municipal income tax of about 30% and an additional high-income state tax of 20–25% when a salary exceeds roughly 320,000 SEK per year [approx €29k]. The employing company pays an additional 32% of an "employer's fee." [~PRSI] In addition, a national VAT of 25% is added to many things bought by private citizens...

As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, the second highest tax burden among developed countries...

Inverted tax wedge - the amount going to the service worker's wallet - is approximately 15% compared to ... 30% in Ireland and 50% in United States.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

If you want large governement spending then you need high taxes. I for one prefer a system of individual choice.

breezer wrote:

I get very irritated when people (in general, I'm not attacking you here), confronted with the reality that there is a much greater emphasis put on society than on personal wealth in countries such as Sweden, constantly retort that taxes are higher in these countries, as if taxes are the world's greatest evil. If used properly, higher taxes can be of great benefit to a society. I would much rather have a functioning health (or, indeed, education) system than a BMW, and would be quite willing to pay much higher taxes in order to achieve that.

Consider this example:

You can have unlimited free bus travel for an extra tax of €1500 per annum.

I'd prefer to pay for the bus each time I take it rather than paying the extra taxl.

• Yes it would be nice to have a free bus service, but it wouldnt be really free since Ive paid for it, just indirectly.
  
• I think it would generate inefficiency since people dont need to consider the marginal cost. I think the transport system would get clogged by people getting their monies worth i.e. ever notice people with ramblers getting on the bus for one stop less than 100 meters away. Think of the time lost if a million people suddenly started doing that.
  
• And the bit that I disagree with most - people lose the choice to save money by not taking the bus.

The same can be said of college fees. Everyone in Sweden pays for free education via extremly high taxes. Id consider it more equitable for the cost of 3rd level eduacation to be born by those availing of it.

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Consider this example:

You can have unlimited free bus travel for an extra tax of €1500 per annum.

I'd prefer to pay for the bus each time I take it rather than paying the extra taxl.

• Yes it would be nice to have a free bus service, but it wouldnt be really free since Ive paid for it, just indirectly.
  
• I think it would generate inefficiency since people dont need to consider the marginal cost. I think the transport system would get clogged by people getting their monies worth i.e. ever notice people with ramblers getting on the bus for one stop less than 100 meters away. Think of the time lost if a million people suddenly started doing that.
  
• And the bit that I disagree with most - people lose the choice to save money by not taking the bus.

The same can be said of college fees. Everyone in Sweden pays for free education via extremly high taxes. Id consider it more equitable for the cost of 3rd level eduacation to be born by those availing of it.

Fair point. I'm not advocating a communist regime or anything, and on the point of buses I'm broadly in agreement with you. But for more fundamental issues such as health or education (I know we disagree on what constitutes a 'fundamental issue'), I'd be all for increased taxation funding the system.

In cases like this, I'd also see the removal of choice as to whether you pay or not as a good thing. Everyone paying solely for what they themselves will use (in other words, the "I'm alright Jack" mentality) is fine for discretionary spends, but if it's applied to health it results in Martha the 80 year old who suffers from every chronic disease known to man going bankrupt rather quickly and then having her health deteriorate at the rate of knots. To give another example, take Ryanair's recent 'toilet charge' rubbish: there was uproar because applying certain charges solely to the individual who avails of them is not equitable.

What I'm saying is, with this type of model, some people inevitably end up outside the system with no way in. The same could be said if high college fees were to be reimposed. And (excuse the simplistic comparison, I've gone into more detail on other threads as you know) just as having urine all over an airplane when someone forgets their euro coin and can't get into the toilet wouldn't be particularly pleasant for anyone on board, denying people access to education will not be beneficial to Irish society.

Tom65

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

And how do you think Sweden affords this?

"Since the late 1960s, Sweden has had the highest tax quota (as percentage of GDP) in the industrialized world, although today the gap has narrowed and Denmark has surpassed Sweden as the most heavily taxed country among developed countries. Sweden has a two step progressive tax scale with a municipal income tax of about 30% and an additional high-income state tax of 20–25% when a salary exceeds roughly 320,000 SEK per year [approx €29k]. The employing company pays an additional 32% of an "employer's fee." [~PRSI] In addition, a national VAT of 25% is added to many things bought by private citizens...

As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, the second highest tax burden among developed countries...

Inverted tax wedge - the amount going to the service worker's wallet - is approximately 15% compared to ... 30% in Ireland and 50% in United States.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

If you want large governement spending then you need high taxes. I for one prefer a system of individual choice.





Consider this example:

You can have unlimited free bus travel for an extra tax of €1500 per annum.

I'd prefer to pay for the bus each time I take it rather than paying the extra taxl.

• Yes it would be nice to have a free bus service, but it wouldnt be really free since Ive paid for it, just indirectly.
  
• I think it would generate inefficiency since people dont need to consider the marginal cost. I think the transport system would get clogged by people getting their monies worth i.e. ever notice people with ramblers getting on the bus for one stop less than 100 meters away. Think of the time lost if a million people suddenly started doing that.
  
• And the bit that I disagree with most - people lose the choice to save money by not taking the bus.

The same can be said of college fees. Everyone in Sweden pays for free education via extremly high taxes. Id consider it more equitable for the cost of 3rd level eduacation to be born by those availing of it.

I'm very much aware of all that, and it's a system I think works. I think it comes down to personal philosophy. It's not as if the high taxes only go to funding third level education; the amenities are ridiculously good here. Also, people earn good wages here, they high taxes don't bother them.

You look it as 'paying for what you use', but everyone pays in something, everyone gets something out. To me the system seems to work out better for everyone with high taxes. Just my opinion.

Pride Fighter

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0318/education.html


Fine Gael are going to introduce the graduate tax idea. Basically they will abolish registration fees but everyone will have to pay 30% the cost of their degree over 10 years. This will raise 500 million per year according to Brian Hayes.


I dislike this idea, I will not give any of the main parties a lower preference when I vote. Looks like Labour are the only party opposed to third level fees.

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0318/education.html


Fine Gael are going to introduce the graduate tax idea. Basically they will abolish registration fees but everyone will have to pay 30% the cost of their degree over 10 years. This will raise 500 million per year according to Brian Hayes.


I dislike this idea, I will not give any of the main parties a lower preference when I vote. Looks like Labour are the only party opposed to third level fees.

Nothing new really (other than the 30% figure), Brian Hayes stated this months ago.

I had to laugh at Batt O'Keeffe's response, that FG was somehow being dishonest. Some people might not like this proposal, but it seems upfront and honest to me. Unlike the year on year increasing cost of 'registration.'

Given that taxes are set to rise for everyone come next month, what would Labour's alternative be?


EDIT/UPDATE: I heard Batt O'Keeffe on the radio this morning stating that any measures taken are unlikely to apply to anyone entering college in 2009, but will probably be in place for those entering in 2010. I can't find a written source yet, unfortunately.

Stabshauptmann

Tom65 wrote: »

I'm very much aware of all that, and it's a system I think works. I think it comes down to personal philosophy. It's not as if the high taxes only go to funding third level education; the amenities are ridiculously good here. Also, people earn good wages here, they high taxes don't bother them.

You look it as 'paying for what you use', but everyone pays in something, everyone gets something out. To me the system seems to work out better for everyone with high taxes. Just my opinion.

Your opinion might change when you start paying taxes, especially if you're a net contributor.
There is no reason why a carpenter should pay for the 3rd level education of a teacher.

But OT
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/okeeffe-to-end-free--thirdlevel-education-1679714.html

It seems fees are only a matter of time

delta_bravo

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

But OT
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/okeeffe-to-end-free--thirdlevel-education-1679714.html

It seems fees are only a matter of time

Id say the people who did transition year or took a year out to 'find themselves' are pretty annoyed now

El Siglo

Folks I wouldn't worry, if it doesn't affect you then it doesn't matter, selfish I know but it's kind of like changing the leaving cert to make it easier for students, it doesn't make a difference to you when you're not doing it anymore! Enjoy these days folks we're the last of a generation of free-educated soon-to-be (hopefully) degree holders, perched on our ivory towers, the view is pretty nice up here!;)

And for any anti-fees people, don't be a moaning michael I'm having a laugh!

33% God

El Siglo wrote: »

Folks I wouldn't worry, if it doesn't affect you then it doesn't matter, selfish I know

Not so much selfish as stupid.

El Siglo

33% God wrote: »

Not so much selfish as stupid.

I'm only joking, Christ almighty!:rolleyes:

Technically selfish would be the appropriate description of my previous comment as selfishness denotes precedence given to thought of self as opposed to stupidity which is indicative of low intelligence, my contention is that if fees do not affect me or others whom are leaving undergraduate education before the instigation of fees, then why worry, and if one is to perform a quasi-introspection of fees then:

If I am leaving third level this year,
Fees are being introduced to thrid level,
I am finished third level, and I am not being charged fees,
Fees do not affect me,
Therefore I don't care.

Now I know that it's terrible for fees to come back and that a lot (and I don't intend on underestimating this) a lot of capable students will be affected and it will affect the 'knowledge economy', social capital etc... but I don't care because I don't have to pay, then why should I care about anyone else, really what benefit do I accrue from somebody else whom receive's free education? If something doesn't affect you directly, then why should you care? When you watch a concern or trocaire ad on television, do you feel personally affected by the plight of starving children? If so, then that's a subjective matter, which is exactly my argument, it's subjective. If I was to be objective on the matter, I would have said something a bit more balanced such as the expenditure saved from funding third level or the affect that fees may have on say marginalised urban/rural communities. And why is it stupid to not care? What's wrong with being selfish? Again, it's subjective so I could be selfless and argue that "free education is a right and not a privilege". This isn't a stupid argument, it's a stupid situation we're in because there is no real hard data disputing the benefits associated with a reintroduction of fees. I personally don't like the situation, however:
'We the people' voted Fianna Fail in (I personally didn't),
The opposition is just as bad if not worse or non-existent (eg. Fine Gael want to reintroduce a graduate tax scheme),
There are cutbacks everywhere, inevitably third level was to take a hit.

It's a bad situation, but there's always Canada to go to!;)

hughbrady

Seeing as how my other post got deleted from the strike thread after some wuss complained, I'd just like to say that if anyone thinks that, in the current economic climate, the return of fees in some shape or form is anything but inevitable, they're sadly mistaken.

Primary education is a right to all, as enshrined by the declaration on human rights. Secondary education is a bit of a gray area, but third level education most certainly is not a right, it's a privilege. Why the hell should I pay for your degree, if I don't have one. Should I pay for your masters? Your PhD? Your MBA?

The thing is, all the Students Union crowd are jumping on the bandwagon because it's the popular opinion, while everyone knows, deep down, that it's a done deal, and no amount of pathetic 'strike action' (Oh no, the students aren't coming in. On a Monday. Imagine) will change that.

Breezer

hughbrady wrote: »

Why the hell should I pay for your degree, if I don't have one.

You're not paying for someone else's degree. You're contributing a proportion of your earnings towards the funding of third level education, which you yourself can avail of if you so wish. The people whose degrees you seem to think you're paying for are also contributing towards this fund.

Should I pay for your masters? Your PhD? Your MBA?

No, because a postgraduate degree is not usually required to get a semi-decent job. With an undergrad degree, people are perfectly well equipped to find a job with a reasonable salary, enabling them to save towards funding their own postgrad. An undergraduate degree, on the other hand, is more or less a requirement for most semi-decent jobs these days.

The thing is, all the Students Union crowd are jumping on the bandwagon because it's the popular opinion, while everyone knows, deep down, that it's a done deal, and no amount of pathetic 'strike action' (Oh no, the students aren't coming in. On a Monday. Imagine) will change that.

Agreed on the strike being a mad idea. It doesn't mean those opposed to fees shouldn't voice their opinion. I just think there were better ways to do it.

Tom65

Just thought I'd update this thread with the latest on fees from today's Irish Times:

A DISCUSSION paper setting out the options on third-level fees will be circulated by Minister for Education Batt O'Keeffe among his Cabinet colleagues within weeks. There are strong indications that the 40,000-plus students who enrol at third level this September will be liable for the new charges - even though they will not actually be introduced until September 2010.

It is also expected that some form of deferred payment scheme for students - rather than a return to fees paid by parents - will form the main thrust of the Minister's proposals.

However, sources stress that discussions on the final shape of the new regime are ongoing with the Department of Finance.

The Minister has still to finalise his proposals or make a final recommendation.

Education sources signalled yesterday that a student-loan scheme - rather than some form of graduate tax - is among the main policy options.

It is widely expected that those on "very high" salaries will be asked to pay fees.

Mr O'Keeffe has repeatedly said that those who can afford to pay fees should be asked to make a contribution.

He has also signalled that low- and middle-income earners may not be liable for major new charges.

While circulating an options paper to Cabinet colleagues, the Minister will not reveal his own preferred option until the Cabinet discusses the issue.

Mr O'Keeffe may face opposition from Green Party Ministers.

...

I just wonder how much opposition the Green Party will put to fees. Later in the article it says:

A spokesman for Green Party leader John Gormley said third-level fees were "not in the programme for government and we are opposed".

However, he said the Green Party in government was prepared to listen to what Mr O'Keeffe had to say and engage in discussions with their coalition partners."

If they've set their stall out against it, I'd like to see some form of meaningful opposition to fees. Either way, I'd imagine we'll have a better idea of what sort of fees will be introduced by the end of the semester.

bnt

That statement sounds more like what I was expecting. It would be political suicide to drop huge unpayable bills through the letterboxes of voters on day one, which was the scary scenario threatened by the unions.

On the other hand, it they're going to be so "gentle" about imposing fees, just how much money is it going to make for the government anyway? The new bureaucracy to manage this will tear chunks off the money coming in. :rolleyes:

bnt

If I may bring this back up: the latest news is that the Cabinet will be getting a "discussion document" that contains "observations and considerations but no recommendations". Any kind of decision on fees is still months away, definitely not before September.