FG education proposals

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 as a University student, 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.

Time Magazine

As a student, I think this is a great idea. The removal of the registration fee stops a significant problem for the less well-off (who have to find the money and then get it refunded :rolleyes:) and helps ensure those that benefit from education pay for it. Joe the Plumber should not have to subsidise my education.

IronMan

Why do you dislike the idea? You are getting a third level education which is a privilege and not an automatic entitlement. It affords you the opportunity to have a high standard of living. You should pay for this.

Pride Fighter

IronMan wrote: »

Why do you dislike the idea? You are getting a third level education which is a privilege and not an automatic entitlement. It affords you the opportunity to have a high standard of living. You should pay for this.

I dislike the idea as they are giving with one hand and taking with the other. People from poor backgrounds should be encouraged into education and given extra grants and the like. Being straddled with 30% of your fees for 10 years is undesirable. This will encourage more people into areas with lower fees like humanities and social science instead of areas with higher fees such as medicine and engineering.

Time Magazine

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I dislike the idea as they are giving with one hand and taking with the other. People from poor backgrounds should be encouraged into education and given extra grants and the like.

Grant money doesn't emerge from thin air and you may have noticed the county is a bit short of cash at the moment. I haven't seen the FG figures, but let's take them at their word and assume this would raise €500m a year. That can go to grants.

One Joe the Plumber stops subsidising D4 Ross's education, there's more money for Joe the Plumber's son's grant cheque.

r0nanf

I think that's a balanced and equitable way of doing it for the moment. The way our coffers are set up it's probably the only way too.

I'd prefer to see true universality through a free system but that would require (permanently) higher tax rates...

Lockstep

Strange given how FG were praising themselves for their abolishing fees with Labour during the student fees protests recently.

silverharp

it sounds like a make work scheme from an administration point of view. We have ended up with a complicted tax system as it is

Dannyboy83

This is very clever and I think I'm nearly deadset on voting for Fine Gael to be honest at this stage.

The thought of re-introducing fees for the people who came after me totally put me off them. This is way more reasonable.

The only thing I don't know is how will they recoup costs if the people migrate?
But not had a chance to think about it yet.

Time Magazine

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Strange given how FG were praising themselves for their abolishing fees with Labour during the student fees protests recently.

Not really strange at all, as this should really be considered as a way to fund education without bringing fees back.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I dislike the idea as they are giving with one hand and taking with the other. People from poor backgrounds should be encouraged into education and given extra grants and the like.

So you suggest that those who dont go to college, i.e. the worst well off of the less well off, pay for everyone else? Is that you idea of fair?

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Being straddled with 30% of your fees for 10 years is undesirable

Your going to be paying for it anyway through normal tax. This new incentive will simply reduce the amount people who don't benefit pay for those who do. I think 30% isnt going far enough, It should be nearer to 100.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

This will encourage more people into areas with lower fees like humanities and social science.

No it wont, because people wont do any bull**** degrees like "celtic civilization" and crap like that. They will have to do a good degree instead.

It will stop this complacency attitude people have. I see people **** arsing through college, laughing when they fail exams and at the lack of work they do etc etc. Its because its free and they dont have any financial incentive to do good.

Disclaimer: I was in college, dropped out, and will restart again in September, so if anything my vested interest lies in free fees. However I am not so blind as to see I wont be paying for it.

Edit: and the worst off will get grants btw. So its a bit of a non-argument really. I would be mighty pissed if fees had to be paid up front, because I think the govt get a benefit from being a lender of sorts as it encourages the "knowledge economy." Grants are too much as well. I know of a girl who gets 10 grand a year in grants because shes from a disadvantaged background. 10 grand is taking the biscuit.

Sleepy

Would a FÁS apprenticeship be considered 3rd level education?

The Joe the Plumber references are making me think of this tbh. A good tradesman will easily attain wage parity with graduates.

Once *ALL* third level education is included in this scheme, I'm all for it.

Lockstep

The Economist wrote: »

Not really strange at all, as this should really be considered as a way to fund education without bringing fees back.

Ogra Fianna Fáil proposed the exact same thing.

I just find it strange how FG were going on about how great they are for getting rid of fees and aligning themselves on the same level with Labour and then putting this out.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is Joyce scholarship capable of funding itself through opening a pathway to higher earnings?

Shiny

The Economist wrote: »

Grant money doesn't emerge from thin air and you may have noticed the county is a bit short of cash at the moment. I haven't seen the FG figures, but let's take them at their word and assume this would raise €500m a year. That can go to grants.

One Joe the Plumber stops subsidising D4 Ross's education, there's more money for Joe the Plumber's son's grant cheque.

As a student I think the graduate tax idea is a good one but lets not idolize tradesmen
as angels. They would be well able to pay their son's grant cheque from all their cash
in hand jobs.

Time Magazine

Sleepy wrote: »

Would a FÁS apprenticeship be considered 3rd level education?

The Joe the Plumber references are making me think of this tbh. A good tradesman will easily attain wage parity with graduates.

Once *ALL* third level education is included in this scheme, I'm all for it.

The Joe the Plumber reference is just bandwagon talk. I haven't thought about this a lot, but my initial inclination is probably to restrict the graduate tax to degrees.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ogra Fianna Fáil proposed the exact same thing.

...so?

I just find it strange how FG were going on about how great they are for getting rid of fees and aligning themselves on the same level with Labour and then putting this out.

Getting rid of fees was a great. (Unfortunately it didn't work.) This is really not the same thing as bringing back fees. It backloads the payment rather than frontloads it, which makes a difference. It also backloads it only onto those that can pay, which also makes a difference.

It's either stupid or disingenuous to suggest this is inconsistent with the removal of fees.

Shiny wrote: »

As a student I think the graduate tax idea is a good one but lets not idolize tradesmen
as angels. They would be well able to pay their son's grant cheque from all their cash
in hand jobs.

See above. Joe the Plumber is easily translated to Joe the Spar Manager.

Lockstep

The Economist wrote: »

...so?

So.....FG are not really original here. THis was in the Fianna Fáil ard fheis. And put forward by the youth wing.

The Economist wrote: »

Getting rid of fees was a great. (Unfortunately it didn't work.)

I'd say it worked to a degree,
The admission rate in higher education in Ireland increased by 11% since 1998 (in 2004), doubling for skilled manual groups, increasing by 10-17% for semi and unskilled.

The Economist wrote: »

This is really not the same thing as bringing back fees. It backloads the payment rather than frontloads it, which makes a difference. It also backloads it only onto those that can pay, which also makes a difference.

Is it really that different? My parents attended university on grants which were available to those who couldn't afford to go, whereas those deemed able to pay did so.

It's not really that different, sounds like Fine Gael arguing on semantics.

The Economist wrote: »

It's either stupid or disingenuous to suggest this is inconsistent with the removal of fees.

If you say so.
I'd disagree given that they are now advocating paying to go to college (although ina different way)

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

So.....FG are not really original here. THis was in the Fianna Fáil ard fheis. And put forward by the youth wing.

Brian Hayes originally proposed this last November, this is just the official Green Paper on the matter. See here.

Is it really that different? My parents attended university on grants which were available to those who couldn't afford to go, whereas those deemed able to pay did so.

Yes, it is different, because where means testing is employed, some people inevitably end up on the opposite side of the cut off to where they should be. This way, there will be nothing put in the way of people obtaining a third level education, and only those who can afford to pay the cost of it back will do so. It's the best possible system in the face of mounting evidence that universal taxation (my preferred option in an ideal world) simply isn't working.

Time Magazine

kickoutthejams wrote: »

So.....FG are not really original here. THis was in the Fianna Fáil ard fheis. And put forward by the youth wing.

As a member of Labour Youth, I'm sure you'll agree not all ideas proposed by youth wings are made party policy. Of course it's not a fine new invention by Brian Hayes; it has been done in other countries. It is, however, a clarification on party policy that seems workable.

I'd say it worked to a degree,
The admission rate in higher education in Ireland increased by 11% since 1998 (in 2004), doubling for skilled manual groups, increasing by 10-17% for semi and unskilled.

Correlation does not imply causation. This is a crucial point for policy analysis that is all too often overlooked. The left are particularly hypocritical in this regard: they applaud correlations that aren't causal and simultaneously call for "root cause" solutions to social problems.

I think this point is so important I'm going to labour it with an example. It is an undoubted fact that children that are spanked more often become adults that have a greater tendency to commit violent crime. This leads to claims that spanking children causes violent crime. But the crucial thing here is that there is no evidence for this. It is entirely plausible that bad children get spanked more, and bad children become bad adults. Unless you can tease out this effect from the data, you can't make assertions like "spanking children makes them bad adults".

Similarly what you're doing is looking at admission rates pre- and post-1998 and concluding the abolition was relatively successful. I'd argue (and so would bodies like the ESRI) that you're looking at the wrong counter-factual. What you should really be doing is looking at how would have happened to admission rates had fees not been abolished. There is, obviously, no data for this. But that doesn't mean nothing can be inferred. For example, it's well-observed all around the world that as countries get richer, people go to college more. (There is endogeneity/reverse causality here, absolutely, but my statement remains true.) Thus, given the huge increase in GDP we've had since 1998, you would expect admission rates to increase anyway. Look at the historical data on admission rates as a function of GDP and you find that nothing strange happened when fees were abolished. The line is essentially straight all the way through 1980-2008. Suddenly you've no obvious correlation between admission and abolition of fees. In fact the most detailed studies of this (from the ESRI, UCD, etc.) find that when you control for other factors, the abolition of fees had feck all effect.

Is it really that different? My parents attended university on grants which were available to those who couldn't afford to go, whereas those deemed able to pay did so.

This is, imho, the reason free fees aren't working. Poor people didn't pay fees anyway. But by subsidising D4 Ross' education, there's less money for Ballymun. Of course we can argue that if we increased taxes there'd be more money, but that's a separate argument. You don't decide whether e-voting machines are value for money on the basis that we could increase taxes. We should isolate the free fees scheme from the broader tax question to see if it's providing value for money. It was a great idea, but unfortunately it has failed to bridge the gap. A kid from Ballymun is less likely to go to university than one from Donnybrook, all other things equal. By removing Donnybrook Boy's fees, if anything, we just moved that money to private tuition for his Leaving Cert.

It's not really that different, sounds like Fine Gael arguing on semantics.

It absolutely makes a psychological difference whether people are asked to pay now or pay later. Why else would furniture stores offer "Pay nothing for 6 months" deals? Moreover, people are probably more risk-averse and have higher discount-rates at 17/18 than at 21/22.

If you say so.
I'd disagree given that they are now advocating paying to go to college (although ina different way)

Well college is never really free, because Labour are suggesting we pay to go to college in a different way i.e. taxation.

I fully understand the argument for free fees. I'm sympathetic that it's very hard for a two-kid family with €40,000 income to pay fees, and I'm extremely supportive of efforts to get higher participation rates in poorer communities. The distinction, I think, is that I actually care more about higher participation rates for kids in Ballymun than you do. I'm of the opinion that the free fees scheme did not succeed in its endeavour and everyone agrees it is quite expensive. I argue we should bring in some form of individualised recoupment (be it fees or a graduate tax) so that money can't be channelled to least well-off. Labour seem to be suggesting any family on less than €70,000 shouldn't be touched. I say f*ck that. Getting families on €50,000 to pay will provide more money for those on €25,000. That's how we'll really raise the stock of the lowest 10%.

As an economy, it looks unlikely that we can borrow any more money. We'll raise taxes at the end of the month to balance the budget. Put simply, we only have so much money and we have to decide how to spend it. Every euro we subsidise a family on €50,000 is one that the family on €25,000 can't have. If you really want to induce change, we have to stop pandering to the middle-classes. This also means that I do not think the hard-working guy who left school after the LC should not subsidise my investment of a masters. Fees look like a political impossibility, so at first glance it really seems that backloading the payment onto people like me and off people like Joe the Plumber is the way to go.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

Brian Hayes originally proposed this last November, this is just the official Green Paper on the matter. See here.

Fair enough. Source though? I like reading Irish politics material.

Breezer wrote: »

Yes, it is different, because where means testing is employed, some people inevitably end up on the opposite side of the cut off to where they should be. This way, there will be nothing put in the way of people obtaining a third level education, and only those who can afford to pay the cost of it back will do so. It's the best possible system in the face of mounting evidence that universal taxation (my preferred option in an ideal world) simply isn't working.

It still seems an awful lot like fees. Fine Gael patting themselves on the back and saying how they did such a great thing with Labour and bitching about FF for the concept of fees and then bringing in a system where you still pay albeit througha graduate tax.
I keep hearing how it's different to a loan system. That's cool, but it still results in students paying to go to college, and is a lot like fees.
What is the cut off point here? I know the FF proposed 35kp/a being the point where you would start paying a graduate tax.

Also, this scheme relies in PRSI. What happens if you leave the country?

Also, if it's a graduate tax, what happens if you don't graduate?

HQvhs

FG's proposal is the first concrete plan for paying for third level education that I've heard so far, in contrast with Labour's fairy-tale delusions about free university for all. Where are we going to get the money? We have to pay for it. I think The Economist put it far better than I could, so I'm not going to try and expand on his point.

I just want to say that Labour's free university for all is a great sound-bite and piece of populist nonsense, but is completely unworkable in the current economic climate. I say this as someone who will have to pay any fees that come in. I think we all have to grow up and realise money doesn't grow on trees, and that if you benefit from a good education, you should at the very least pay towards some of it. But, more importantly, it should be done in such a way that people from poor backgrounds aren't discouraged from studying at university.

Therefore, although there are flaws in FG's plan, most notably with permanent emigrants, it is miles ahead of any proposals from other parties.

HQvhs

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Fair enough. Source though? I like reading Irish politics material.


It still seems an awful lot like fees. Fine Gael patting themselves on the back and saying how they did such a great thing with Labour and bitching about FF for the concept of fees and then bringing in a system where you still pay albeit througha graduate tax.
I keep hearing how it's different to a loan system. That's cool, but it still results in students paying to go to college, and is a lot like fees.
What is the cut off point here? I know the FF proposed 35kp/a being the point where you would start paying a graduate tax.

Also, this scheme relies in PRSI. What happens if you leave the country?

Also, if it's a graduate tax, what happens if you don't graduate?

I agree there are flaws in the plan. On emigrants and people who drop out. But the basic premise is a good one.
So what if you have to pay to go to college? You have to pay anyway, through taxes and registration fees. This way you pay once you can afford it. This way no one is discouraged by the initial cost, there is an incentive to work hard and graduate with a good degree to get a decent job to pay back the extra PRSI payments, and the government gets a source of income to fund universities. It will also end the ridiculous situation where we currently subsidise medicine students to a ludicrous degree, as medicine graduates will earn a decent wage when they graduate, and are practically guaranteed employment. Although, I would like to point out, there is no way a medicine student could work while studying to pay the true cost of their education on a annual fee basis.

Lockstep

The Economist wrote: »

As a member of Labour Youth, I'm sure you'll agree not all ideas proposed by youth wings are made party policy. Of course it's not a fine new invention by Brian Hayes; it has been done in other countries. It is, however, a clarification on party policy that seems workable.

I never said it was party policy, I was pointing out it had previously been proposed (in a very similar form)

The Economist wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation. This is a crucial point for policy analysis that is all too often overlooked. The left are particularly hypocritical in this regard: they applaud correlations that aren't causal and simultaneously call for "root cause" solutions to social problems.

Yeah we're terrible in that regard:pac:

Given the abolition of fees in 1996, I'd say that the abolition of fees would play a large part in this.

The Economist wrote: »

I think this point is so important I'm going to labour it with an example. It is an undoubted fact that children that are spanked more often become adults that have a greater tendency to commit violent crime. This leads to claims that spanking children causes violent crime. But the crucial thing here is that there is no evidence for this. It is entirely plausible that bad children get spanked more, and bad children become bad adults. Unless you can tease out this effect from the data, you can't make assertions like "spanking children makes them bad adults".

Fair enough, but given the link in dates between the abolition of fees and the increase in students attending university, I wouldn't be so quick to write it off as correlation not being causation.

The Economist wrote: »

Similarly what you're doing is looking at admission rates pre- and post-1998 and concluding the abolition was relatively successful. I'd argue (and so would bodies like the ESRI) that you're looking at the wrong counter-factual. What you should really be doing is looking at how would have happened to admission rates had fees not been abolished. There is, obviously, no data for this. But that doesn't mean nothing can be inferred. For example, it's well-observed all around the world that as countries get richer, people go to college more. (There is endogeneity/reverse causality here, absolutely, but my statement remains true.) Thus, given the huge increase in GDP we've had since 1998, you would expect admission rates to increase anyway. Look at the historical data on admission rates as a function of GDP and you find that nothing strange happened when fees were abolished. The line is essentially straight all the way through 1980-2008. Suddenly you've no obvious correlation between admission and abolition of fees. In fact the most detailed studies of this (from the ESRI, UCD, etc.) find that when you control for other factors, the abolition of fees had feck all effect.

Can you me to the ESRI report your basing this on? Or for the sources showing that fees had feck all effect?

GIven the large increase in semi-unskilled attendance of college, I wouldnt say it's as easy as just saying "they're richer, they'd be going to college anyway"

The Economist wrote: »

This is, imho, the reason free fees aren't working. Poor people didn't pay fees anyway. But by subsidising D4 Ross' education, there's less money for Ballymun. Of course we can argue that if we increased taxes there'd be more money, but that's a separate argument. You don't decide whether e-voting machines are value for money on the basis that we could increase taxes. We should isolate the free fees scheme from the broader tax question to see if it's providing value for money. It was a great idea, but unfortunately it has failed to bridge the gap. A kid from Ballymun is less likely to go to university than one from Donnybrook, all other things equal. By removing Donnybrook Boy's fees, if anything, we just moved that money to private tuition for his Leaving Cert.

d4 Ross's parents might have been able to afford it, but what if he was estranged from his parents? He'd fall through the cracks there.

The Economist wrote: »

It absolutely makes a psychological difference whether people are asked to pay now or pay later. Why else would furniture stores offer "Pay nothing for 6 months" deals? Moreover, people are probably more risk-averse and have higher discount-rates at 17/18 than at 21/22.

Psychological difference? Sure. But I would still see it as fairly sneaky of FG to be praising themselves over publicly opposing fees when it was in the limelight (at student protests etc) and how great they were for abolishing fees and then bringing in a model still requiring them to pay.

The Economist wrote: »

Well college is never really free, because Labour are suggesting we pay to go to college in a different way i.e. taxation.

I am aware of this. The fundamental concept of the welfare state; it is not free but paid though taxation.

The Economist wrote: »

I fully understand the argument for free fees. I'm sympathetic that it's very hard for a two-kid family with €40,000 income to pay fees, and I'm extremely supportive of efforts to get higher participation rates in poorer communities. The distinction, I think, is that I actually care more about higher participation rates for kids in Ballymun than you do.

Not really, my old man taught in inner city Dublin for most of his teaching career and I did a couple of Leaving cert subjects in the same school. I disagree that you can claim to "care more" about higher participation rates for kids in Ballymun based on my e-persona.

The Economist wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the free fees scheme did not succeed in its endeavour and everyone agrees it is quite expensive. I argue we should bring in some form of individualised recoupment (be it fees or a graduate tax) so that money can't be channelled to least well-off. Labour seem to be suggesting any family on less than €70,000 shouldn't be touched. I say f*ck that. Getting families on €50,000 to pay will provide more money for those on €25,000. That's how we'll really raise the stock of the lowest 10%.

Of course they should be touched, but through taxation.

The Economist wrote: »

As an economy, it looks unlikely that we can borrow any more money. We'll raise taxes at the end of the month to balance the budget. Put simply, we only have so much money and we have to decide how to spend it. Every euro we subsidise a family on €50,000 is one that the family on €25,000 can't have. If you really want to induce change, we have to stop pandering to the middle-classes. This also means that I do not think the hard-working guy who left school after the LC should not subsidise my investment of a masters. Fees look like a political impossibility, so at first glance it really seems that backloading the payment onto people like me and off people like Joe the Plumber is the way to go.

Sure, hit the middle classes. But hit them through taxation. Instead of making them pay upfront, get it from their pockets via the exchequer. They are still paying and it ensures that those who can afford it will be paying for it.

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Fair enough. Source though? I like reading Irish politics material.

You quoted a link I posted to an official statement dated 21 November 2008.

It still seems an awful lot like fees. Fine Gael patting themselves on the back and saying how they did such a great thing with Labour and bitching about FF for the concept of fees and then bringing in a system where you still pay albeit througha graduate tax.

The Economist has made good point in relation to this above, as did Brian Hayes in that statement, which I'd echo.

I keep hearing how it's different to a loan system. That's cool, but it still results in students paying to go to college, and is a lot like fees.

No, it results in graduates who are currently in paid employment retrospectively paying a proportion of their income to cover the cost of their education. Fees would indeed result in students, who by and large do not have well-paying jobs, paying for their education before they receive it. Loans would likely incur interest and repayments would have to be made regardless of level of income.

What is the cut off point here? I know the FF proposed 35kp/a being the point where you would start paying a graduate tax.

There is none. It would apply to all graduates, until 30% of the cost of their education is paid.

Also, this scheme relies in PRSI. What happens if you leave the country?

So does the current scheme. But we have not had mass emigration for many years and hopefully we're not going to be facing into that scenario. I don't know if this is dealt with in the Green Paper, I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Also, if it's a graduate tax, what happens if you don't graduate?

A good question. I'd assume that once you register for PSRI you would still have to pay back whatever amount was spent on your education. Have a look at the Green Paper if you're interested, it's available here. I'll be checking this myself when I get a chance.

EDIT: On further scanning of the document, I can't see either of the latter issues addressed. I agree that there should be a system put in place to safeguard against these possibilities, and I'll be writing to Brian Hayes seeking clarity on the issues.

Lockstep

HQvhs wrote: »

I just want to say that Labour's free university for all is a great sound-bite and piece of populist nonsense, but is completely unworkable in the current economic climate. I say this as someone who will have to pay any fees that come in. I think we all have to grow up and realise money doesn't grow on trees, and that if you benefit from a good education, you should at the very least pay towards some of it. But, more importantly, it should be done in such a way that people from poor backgrounds aren't discouraged from studying at university.

It's very much a buzzword that Labour are populist but is it really that populist given that they got rid of it, were trounced in the next election and stuck to their guns on the issue?

HQvhs wrote: »

Therefore, although there are flaws in FG's plan, most notably with permanent emigrants, it is miles ahead of any proposals from other parties.

Permanent emigrants (brain drain?) and doing nothing to stop those who see college as a big party and then fail.

HQvhs wrote: »

I agree there are flaws in the plan. On emigrants and people who drop out. But the basic premise is a good one.
So what if you have to pay to go to college? You have to pay anyway, through taxes and registration fees. This way you pay once you can afford it. This way no one is discouraged by the initial cost, there is an incentive to work hard and graduate with a good degree to get a decent job to pay back the extra PRSI payments, and the government gets a source of income to fund universities. It will also end the ridiculous situation where we currently subsidise medicine students to a ludicrous degree, as medicine graduates will earn a decent wage when they graduate, and are practically guaranteed employment. Although, I would like to point out, there is no way a medicine student could work while studying to pay the true cost of their education on a annual fee basis.

What incentive is there to work hard in college if it's a graduate tax? I'd say that the emigrant/non graduating are major problems and this does nothing to correct these.

I support students paying for their education, but in general taxes when they finished combined with contributions from society as a whole.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

You quoted a link I posted to an official statement dated 21 November 2008.

Damn, I really am going blind these days.

Cheers and sorry about that.

Breezer wrote: »

No, it results in graduates who are currently in paid employment retrospectively paying a proportion of their income to cover the cost of their education. Fees would indeed result in students, who by and large do not have well-paying jobs, paying for their education before they receive it. Loans would likely incur interest and repayments would have to be made regardless of level of income.

I agree, it is different to the usual fees proposal, but as FG used equivocal language and cheering themselves for being in on a Labour scheme, to come out with this is fairly sly IMHO.

Breezer wrote: »

There is none. It would apply to all graduates, until 30% of the cost of their education is paid.

In which case I would favor the FF model.
For all graduates to pay 1/3 of their fees, be they nurses or consultants wouldn't be my idea of equity.

Breezer wrote: »

So does the current scheme. But we have not had mass emigration for many years and hopefully we're not going to be facing into that scenario. I don't know if this is dealt with in the Green Paper, I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

We're not paying fees at the moment.
If I found out that I could escape paying 1/3 of my college fees by going abroad, I'd be off like a shot. Irish youngsters have never seemed to have a problem with quitting the country.

Breezer wrote: »

A good question. I'd assume that once you register for PSRI you would still have to pay back whatever amount was spent on your education. Have a look at the Green Paper if you're interested, it's available here. I'll be checking this myself when I get a chance.

EDIT: On further scanning of the document, I can't see either of the latter issues addressed. I agree that there should be a system put in place to safeguard against these possibilities, and I'll be writing to Brian Hayes seeking clarity on the issues.

Thanks man, I'm up to my eyeballs (damn college) at the moment so I don't have a chance to read this right now. Will do ASAP

Such an issue would definetely need to be addressed given how many students see college as an extension of 2nd level education. My old man is a lecturer and while he is against fees, what he sees as a positive aspect of fees would be his feeling that it would keep out all the wasters. This would need to be resolved for this to be equitable at all.

HQvhs

kickoutthejams wrote: »

It's very much a buzzword that Labour are populist but is it really that populist given that they got rid of it, were trounced in the next election and stuck to their guns on the issue?

That was a decade ago. I'm talking about at present. So far there has been little in the way of specifics from Labour on what they will implement, let alone how they would pay for it. Promising students the sun, moon and the stars is all well and good, but not if you've no answer on how they'll pay for it with govt. revenue collapsing around us. It simply is adequate I'm afraid.

Permanent emigrants (brain drain?) and doing nothing to stop those who see college as a big party and then fail.

Well, free university for students at the expense of everyone else certainly won't help that problem! I'm not saying the FG proposal will suddenly fix all the ills with our university system, hell, it won't change those problems one iota.

What incentive is there to work hard in college if it's a graduate tax? I'd say that the emigrant/non graduating are major problems and this does nothing to correct these.

It doesn't, but it succeeds in its aim: to fund third level education. It's not a cure-all for the ailments of the university system. To fix those would require a fundamental reform.

There's an incentive to work hard, to a certain extent (And I agree it could well be flawed reasoning), as a better degree = better job prospects = more pay = less pain to pay it off.

It doesn't combat brain drain though, I agree. And that is a flaw.

I support students paying for their education, but in general taxes when they finished combined with contributions from society as a whole.

That's pretty much what this is. A tax when they're finished and in employment to cover 30% of the cost, with society as a whole covering the remaining cost. Seems fair enough.

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In which case I would favor the FF model. For all graduates to pay 1/3 of their fees, be they nurses or consultants wouldn't be my idea of equity.

FF doesn't really have a model yet. It's all speculation until O'Keeffe puts something concrete on the table.

Also, no one graduates from college and becomes a consultant. You graduate (after an extra year to two years in college compared to nurses), do a one year internship where you work ridiculous hours, then pursue many years of further specialist training, still working ridiculous hours, before becoming a consultant. On average it takes 12 years from the time you graduate. Junior doctors earn decent salaries, but they're not loaded by any means.

We're not paying fees at the moment.
If I found out that I could escape paying 1/3 of my college fees by going abroad, I'd be off like a shot. Irish youngsters have never seemed to have a problem with quitting the country.

Would you really? And never come back? There are lots of reasons people could leave Ireland: bad weather, huge property prices (until recently), high prices in general, rubbish infrastructure, drink culture etc. Would a few thousand euro over the course of many years really be enough to make large numbers of people up and leave permanently? I have my doubts, although the issue should be addressed nonetheless.

Lockstep

HQvhs wrote: »

That was a decade ago. I'm talking about at present. So far there has been little in the way of specifics from Labour on what they will implement, let alone how they would pay for it. Promising students the sun, moon and the stars is all well and good, but not if you've no answer on how they'll pay for it with govt. revenue collapsing around us. It simply is adequate I'm afraid.

Yeah, they are still advocating a university system based on taxation, as they have been doing for a long time. hardly populism.

Labour can be seen around a fair bit as far as their economic policies go, although the same accusations of "no concrete policies" are brought out again and again.

Rabbitte was calling for taxes on wealth as well as income, Gilmore proposing an economic stimulus package etc.
Most of their policies can be found here

HQvhs wrote: »

Well, free university for students at the expense of everyone else certainly won't help that problem! I'm not saying the FG proposal will suddenly fix all the ills with our university system, hell, it won't change those problems one iota.

Having a system where graduates can just leave to avoid PRSI will certainly make it worse. Right now, you can stay without this extra tax, but if this came in, then suddenly you have a large PRSI which you can avoid by just leaving the country.

HQvhs wrote: »

It doesn't, but it succeeds in its aim: to fund third level education. It's not a cure-all for the ailments of the university system. To fix those would require a fundamental reform.

It is likely to make two problems worse:
1) It's a graduate tax, you can doss around in college and then just leave to avoid paying the graduate tax.
2) You can avoid paying by just leaving the country.

HQvhs wrote: »

There's an incentive to work hard, to a certain extent (And I agree it could well be flawed reasoning), as a better degree = better job prospects = more pay = less pain to pay it off.

That mindset is already applicable to college right now. This just means that you can sidestep paying by dropping out or emigrating with your newfound degree

HQvhs wrote: »

That's pretty much what this is. A tax when they're finished and in employment to cover 30% of the cost, with society as a whole covering the remaining cost. Seems fair enough.

Meh, I'd say services which anyone can benefit from should be diffused throughout the whole population through taxation, ensuring it comes from those who can afford to pay it already.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

FF doesn't really have a model yet. It's all speculation until O'Keeffe puts something concrete on the table.

Fair enough, I'll rephrase it as being "the Ogra Fianna Fáil model"

Breezer wrote: »

Also, no one graduates from college and becomes a consultant. You graduate (after an extra year to two years in college compared to nurses), do a one year internship where you work ridiculous hours, then pursue many years of further specialist training, still working ridiculous hours, before becoming a consultant. On average it takes 12 years from the time you graduate. Junior doctors earn decent salaries, but they're not loaded by any means.

I was using consultant as a byword for "well paid graduate".
A doctor is still well paid, substitute that in so.

Breezer wrote: »

Would you really? And never come back? There are lots of reasons people could leave Ireland: bad weather, huge property prices (until recently), high prices in general, rubbish infrastructure, drink culture etc. Would a few thousand euro over the course of many years really be enough to make large numbers of people up and leave permanently? I have my doubts, although the issue should be addressed nonetheless.

Having lived abroad for so long, I see no problem in leaving. Would most likely head back to Belgium. I was interviewed in Grafton Street a few weeks ago by a radio station (Newstalk I think) and me and my friend were asked would we consider moving given the current economic climate. They were amazed when we said no as they claimed all the other youngsters they'd interviewed were talking about going to Australia.