FG education proposals

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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.

Talking is one thing, going is another. And I'd argue that this is to do with the lack of jobs in this country. Stabilising our public finances is an important aspect of sorting out our economy, which will result in more jobs when the global upturn comes. Given that people were willing to take out 6-figure mortgages, I'm still not convinced that a tax of €20,000 or less over the course of many years will drive people out of the country.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

Talking is one thing, going is another. And I'd argue that this is to do with the lack of jobs in this country.

GIven the lack of jobs (and the liklihood that you'll end up working as something which doesn't utilise your degree) and the knowledge that you'll be paying a hefty tax, I'd say it's likely people will leave.

Will the graduate tax still apply if you have a law degree but are working in McDonalds in Ennis?

Breezer wrote: »

Stabilising our public finances is an important aspect of sorting out our economy, which will result in more jobs when the global upturn comes. Given that people were willing to take out 6-figure mortgages, I'm still not convinced that a tax of €20,000 or less over the course of many years will drive people out of the country.

20,000 over 10 years is still 2k less in your pocket each year. If you combine the lack of jobs with the knowledge that you can save yourself 2k p/a I'd say emigration would look very enticing. It certainly does to me.

Time Magazine

It's 9pm and I just ate a ton of pasta so I'm going to go with the 80:20 rule here and assume the majority of my point will come across with a sentence. If I'm around tomorrow, I'll respond more authoritatively.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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.

Why don't higher taxes for all have the same effect?

galwayrush

Seems like an excellent idea.
Lets less well off families have a chance of third level education compared to the current government's opposite ( if accidental) agenda of forcing less well off families to abandon a college dream.

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

GIven the lack of jobs (and the liklihood that you'll end up working as something which doesn't utilise your degree) and the knowledge that you'll be paying a hefty tax, I'd say it's likely people will leave.

Will the graduate tax still apply if you have a law degree but are working in McDonalds in Ennis?


20,000 over 10 years is still 2k less in your pocket each year. If you combine the lack of jobs with the knowledge that you can save yourself 2k p/a I'd say emigration would look very enticing. It certainly does to me.

And €300,000 over 50 years is still €6,000 less in your pocket each year, but people took out 100% mortgages.

The lack of jobs, if decisive action is taken, is not going to last forever. This would not apply to anyone currently in 3rd level education, which means that it would not affect anyone doing a degree course for at least another 3 years.

Lockstep

The Economist wrote: »

Why don't higher taxes for all have the same effect?

As taxes hit those who can afford them, rather than a blanket tax that is 30%, regardless of how much you are earning.

Breezer wrote: »

And €300,000 over 50 years is still €6,000 less in your pocket each year, but people took out 100% mortgages.

The actions of a few people taking out hefty mortages is irrelevant given that this will hit every college graduate, regardless of how fiscally careful they may be.

Breezer wrote: »

The lack of jobs, if decisive action is taken, is not going to last forever. This would not apply to anyone currently in 3rd level education, which means that it would not affect anyone doing a degree course for at least another 3 years.

Yeah, it wouldn't affect me given that I am already in college. However, I oppose this based on society as a whole. Who can say when the recession will pick up for sure? Seems a bit too much of a gamble.

Iwasfrozen

I'm not convinced, as far as I can see this is just an incentive for people "not" to go to college.
And why should the taxpayer not pay for student fees ?
higher education benefits society as a whole as foreign employers will pay more for a better educated work force.
From what I can see education is the best investment for the government.
My 2 cents.

nesf

I'd like to see more details on it. I'd also like if Brian Hayes copped on a bit and realise that 100-200 Euro a month coming out of someone's salary for a decade would actually be a strong incentive for people to move abroad because of the age it is applied at.


Of course this is missing the point that we are underfunding our Universities at the moment and addressing that needs to be at the heart of the discussion.

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The actions of a few people taking out hefty mortages is irrelevant given that this will hit every college graduate, regardless of how fiscally careful they may be.

It was more than a few. And that's only looking at the extreme example of 100%. Many people borrowed amounts that were more fiscally prudent, but still hefty.

Yeah, it wouldn't affect me given that I am already in college. However, I oppose this based on society as a whole. Who can say when the recession will pick up for sure? Seems a bit too much of a gamble.

No one can say for sure, but most estimates are predicting an upturn in the global economy by 2010-2011. I suppose if you look at it in this way, it is a gamble. But the alternatives that we have so far are:

a) Upfront fees for everyone, at a time when no one has any money. Result - less people go to college, which reduces the number of graduates we have and reduces Ireland's competitiveness in the long run.

b) We continue as we are now, and everyone gets taxed to the hilt on money they don't have. Result: people spend less, businesses fail, people lose jobs, people have less money, people spend less...

Out of those three options, I'd be drawn to Hayes' one.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

Out of those three options, I'd be drawn to Hayes' one.

Hayes' option doesn't solve the second option though. We'll only see returns on his scheme in 4-5 years time depending on when it is implemented. We'll still have to fund third level as is until that time and even then it's only going to pay back a paltry 30%.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

It was more than a few. And that's only looking at the extreme example of 100%. Many people borrowed amounts that were more fiscally prudent, but still hefty.

True but is worth pushing that on the students because of these people? I don't think they represent the Irish economy.

Breezer wrote: »

No one can say for sure, but most estimates are predicting an upturn in the global economy by 2010-2011. I suppose if you look at it in this way, it is a gamble. But the alternatives that we have so far are:

Agreed; a horrendous gamble.

Breezer wrote: »

a) Upfront fees for everyone, at a time when no one has any money. Result - less people go to college, which reduces the number of graduates we have and reduces Ireland's competitiveness in the long run.

We agree this is not feasible.

Breezer wrote: »

b) We continue as we are now, and everyone gets taxed to the hilt on money they don't have. Result: people spend less, businesses fail, people lose jobs, people have less money, people spend less...

Not necessarily, Gilmore has proposed an economic stimulus package, I believe Obama did something similar, the idea being that you give tax cuts to the majority of workers who will then spend, increase confidence in the economy and so on.

At any rate, the whole point behind progressive taxation is that it hits those who can afford to pay it.

Breezer wrote: »

Out of those three options, I'd be drawn to Hayes' one.

It wouldn't give any direct help to the second option and as I said; it does not solve the brain drain/dropout problem. Would 30% really fuel that much given the likely outcomes?

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

Hayes' option doesn't solve the second option though. We'll only see returns on his scheme in 4-5 years time depending on when it is implemented. We'll still have to fund third level as is until that time and even then it's only going to pay back a paltry 30%.

Hayes' idea is to borrow the money for the first number of years, due to being guaranteed a return once people start graduating.

kickouthtejams wrote:

Not necessarily, Gilmore has proposed an economic stimulus package, I believe Obama did something similar, the idea being that you give tax cuts to the majority of workers who will then spend, increase confidence in the economy and so on.

I keep meaning to look into Gilmore's proposals more closely, and will before I vote on anything. But it's worth pointing out that as far as gambles go, Obama's one is enormous. If it works, he'll be seen as the man who saved America (and possibly quite a few other places). If it fails, I hate to think what will happen.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

Hayes' idea is to borrow the money for the first number of years, due to being guaranteed a return once people start graduating.

Fair enough but will it be enough to offset the liklihood of emigration/dropouts? (sorry to keep bringing up the same two points but I'm fairly slow and those two points are the most glaring to me, there's probably a few others (as in any proposal) that I didn't pick up on)

Breezer wrote: »

I keep meaning to look into Gilmore's proposals more closely, and will before I vote on anything. But it's worth pointing out that as far as gambles go, Obama's one is enormous. If it works, he'll be seen as the man who saved America (and possibly quite a few other places). If it fails, I hate to think what will happen.

Ah sure that's Obama for you, I'd have a fair amount of trust in the man though. He seems to have his head screwed on right and his policies so far are good 'uns.

Breezer

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Fair enough but will it be enough to offset the liklihood of emigration/dropouts?

I saw another clip of the interview earlier. Hayes seems to be of the opinion that this isn't going to cause mass emigration. TBH I'd be inclined to agree with him, and I've outlined some of my reasons for that above, although I still feel it should be shored up on point of principle if nothing else.

Lockstep

Breezer wrote: »

I saw another clip of the interview earlier. Hayes seems to be of the opinion that this isn't going to cause mass emigration. TBH I'd be inclined to agree with him, and I've outlined some of my reasons for that above, although I still feel it should be shored up on point of principle if nothing else.

I'd disagree, the economic climate seems particularly bad in Ireland (Eddie Hobbes was in NUIG and claimed we'll be the last to leave the recession)

Irish people have a long history of leaving the country when the going gets tough, a 2k tax certainly wouldn't help this if they can get off by going overseas.

HQvhs

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd disagree, the economic climate seems particularly bad in Ireland (Eddie Hobbes was in NUIG and claimed we'll be the last to leave the recession)

Irish people have a long history of leaving the country when the going gets tough, a 2k tax certainly wouldn't help this if they can get off by going overseas.

That's true. Which is why we want to at least leave this recession with enough decent graduates to help rebuilding and attract investment.

Labour's idea that we just pay for third level education through regualr income tax, VAT etc is, in theory, alright. However, it ignores the temptation of governments to cut spending on universities to the bone (As we've seen), in favour of vote-grabbing measures such as increasing social welfare and widening tax bands. The universities need a stable source of income, relatively free from political meddling and that will ensure that our most able young people get the opportunity to go to university.

The fact is, we need to pay for it some how, and grabbing the money from all tax payers is not fair. Sure, you say everyone benefits from a graduate, but what if that graduate emigrates? Surely then the tax money spent on his/her education has just been thrown down the drain? What if the graduate never pays any form of tax in Ireland? Then he's just gotten free university education, courtesy of everyone else.

Your proposal has similar flaws as the FG, plus more besides.

If mass emigration returns then the problem is the very same one facing the FG plan. That is, the graduate doesn't pay for his course, and the rest of us will foot the bill.

Sleepy

The Economist wrote: »

I haven't thought about this a lot, but my initial inclination is probably to restrict the graduate tax to degrees.

Why?

Is it fair that someone receiving a Bachelor of Commerce who ends up working in a Bank would have to pay for the qualifications that got them there while an electrician working for the ESB (which would be significantly higher paid btw) doesn't?

Or to put it in another way: if we're going by the principle that a person should contribute towards the cost of their increased earning power, why shouldn't it affect all those for whom the state has provided facilities to increase their earning power?

1/3rd the cost of an electricians apprenticeship may be significantly less than 1/3rd the cost of a B.A. which in turn may be significantly less than the 1/3rd of the cost of a Medical degree the consultant being discussed above would have received but the fact remains that each increases one's earning power to a level above that of the leaving cert graduate that takes a job in Tesco.

dlofnep

Pride Fighter wrote: »

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.

Actually no, Sinn Féin are also opposed to third level fees and quite vocally.

I find the idea of graduate tax to be absolutely ridiculous. It's just delayed fees. We pay enough tax as it is and should not be penalised for wanting to pursue an education.

I'd like to see their proposals for IT students and the graduate tax that they should pay, because I know many with master's degrees who are earning slightly above minimum wage in call-centres because they cannot find work. And even at that, the first five years of work is low pay until you get experience.

I will be fully opposed to this moronic idea. FG bang on about opposition to fees, but this is just fees re-packaged under another parcel. Also, I'd like to know what happens to those who don't actually graduate?

Lockstep

HQvhs wrote: »

That's true. Which is why we want to at least leave this recession with enough decent graduates to help rebuilding and attract investment.

And a system where you can avoid paying for your education by just leaving the country shores up these graduates staying in Ireland?

HQvhs wrote: »

Labour's idea that we just pay for third level education through regualr income tax, VAT etc is, in theory, alright. However, it ignores the temptation of governments to cut spending on universities to the bone (As we've seen), in favour of vote-grabbing measures such as increasing social welfare and widening tax bands. The universities need a stable source of income, relatively free from political meddling and that will ensure that our most able young people get the opportunity to go to university.

So commit leglislation outlining how much will go to the universities to ensure it isn't stripped to the bone.

HQvhs wrote: »

The fact is, we need to pay for it some how, and grabbing the money from all tax payers is not fair. Sure, you say everyone benefits from a graduate, but what if that graduate emigrates? Surely then the tax money spent on his/her education has just been thrown down the drain? What if the graduate never pays any form of tax in Ireland? Then he's just gotten free university education, courtesy of everyone else.

The same could be said of secondary school. Should we stop the excheqeuer paying there?

The FG proposal increases the incentive to leave anyway as I have previously outlined.

HQvhs wrote: »

Your proposal has similar flaws as the FG, plus more besides.

How so?
There isn't the same incentive to leave.

HQvhs wrote: »

If mass emigration returns then the problem is the very same one facing the FG plan. That is, the graduate doesn't pay for his course, and the rest of us will foot the bill.

A)under my idea of fees, the graduate comes out with a degree and there is more incentive to stay in Ireland than with FG's proposal.

B)THe exact same would apply to someone who paid fees upfront.

C)Someone who pays through PRSI will soon realise that they can avail of free fees even if they do not exist as their contribution can be completely sidestepped by just leaving the country. The incentive to save 20k is not there in either A or B so it's not the same mass emigration problem that is the "very same one" facing the FG plan.

Time Magazine

It's a Friday night, so I'm not getting back into this debate at least for a while, but just to be courteous:

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Can you me to the ESRI report your basing this on?

What you need starts on page 29 here.

As well, page 11 of something else states:

Although the proportion from unskilled manual backgrounds gaining third level qualifications increased from 2 per cent to 10 per cent between 1973 and 2000, the increase for the professional and managerial class was from 4 per cent to 51 per cent.

kickoutthejams wrote:

Or for the sources showing that fees had feck all effect?

There is some unpublished work done in UCD that I have not seen myself but been assured of. Take it with a pinch of salt if you wish, but I've no great reason to lie.

TheVan

A major problem I have with this is the fact that the amount you pay is based on the cost of your degree.

Inevitably, high-tech degrees, and those based around medicine, science, biotech are going to be the most expensive, thus creating a disincentive to engage in the kind of degrees we actually need in Ireland.

On the other hand, a law degree would (I presume) be quite cheap, despite the generally high rewards that a law graduate gets on the marketplace.

Time Magazine

TheVan wrote: »

A major problem I have with this is the fact that the amount you pay is based on the cost of your degree.

Inevitably, high-tech degrees, and those based around medicine, science, biotech are going to be the most expensive, thus creating a disincentive to engage in the kind of degrees we actually need in Ireland.

On the other hand, a law degree would (I presume) be quite cheap, despite the generally high rewards that a law graduate gets on the marketplace.

Okay this really is my last post on this until I don't have friends bugging me to go out

1. More expensive courses (engineering, medicine, etc.) typically have higher salaries attached
2. If they don't command high salaries, then we generally don't really need them
3. Law does not have high rewards at all when you enter the market
4. If somebody makes a high return on a cheap course (Go Team Economics!) then all the better - it's a good investment.

eoinbn

Are we back to worrying about not having enough graduates to fill the jobs instead of worrying about not having enough jobs for graduates?

If the jobs are here people will stay, saying otherwise is nonsense. How many people would leave their current job and move aboard for an extra ~€1500 per annum?

Time Magazine

Just to further back up my point, I stumbled across this today:

A key aim of the introduction of free tuition fees was to help bring more equality into participation in third level education in Ireland. However, studies conducted both before and after the introduction of this initiative highlight the social inequality of higher education participation in Ireland. Clancy (1997 and 2001) using data on college entrants shows that those going on to third level education come predominantly from areas of higher social classes such as professional and managerial areas. O’Connell et al. (2006) use a similar methodology to arrive at the same conclusion with higher social group populations having a disproportionate percentage of third level admissions relevant to their population size.

That's the polite way to say "free fees haven't work so far".

We find no evidence that the existence of tuition fees reduces the probability of participating in higher education.
...
While this paper cannot comprehensively comment on the possible participation impact of changing the current higher education system of free tuition, the insignificance of credit constraints on the participation decision may suggest that the reintroduction of tuition fees or any other higher education system that places more financial burden on the household may not impact enormously on the decision to go to third level education.

Don't read too much into the "cannot comprehensively comment" bit, that's pointing out that they averages for fees out rather than took them for each individual course. Again, that's the polite way to say "bringing fees back won't hurt much."

This paper from the ESRI is also cited in the one above. I believe this paper may be one I was referred to earlier.

There's really a consensus here...

dlofnep

Breezer wrote: »

Yes, a person who is starting their career, has many years of earning potential (over and above that of a non-graduate) ahead of them, is in most cases single and childless, and can afford to pay a proportion of their income, over a period of several years, towards recouping part of the benefit that has been imparted to them.

Aren't they already contributing greatly to this via high tax? I'm all about the wealthy giving their fair share to society; But it should be funded through general tax - and not additional tax.

Here's the problem - You could have 2 people who earn the exact same amount, live in similar conditions, have similar family setups - but one pays more tax than the other because they opted to further their education.

Secondly - it won't actually fund the education system because it creates a brain drain environment, leading to skilled workers moving abroad, and thus taking their tax with them - be it general tax, or FG's new educational tax.

Breezer wrote: »

Yes, it's a fee. It's a fairer and better thought-out fee.

Better thought out? Well, you're comparing fees with fees. It may be the lesser of two evils in your eyes - But it isn't fair, and isn't well thought out.

Breezer wrote: »

Education funded through general taxation is also a fee.

No, it's not. It covers all areas of taxation. Introducing "educational tax" is categorically specific to third-level education, and because it is only applicable to those who use the service - it could be considered a fee.

Breezer wrote: »

Somewhere along the line, services have to be paid for. Now, if you'd care to look at the thread I linked to in my last post, you'd discover that in an ideal world I would actually agree with you. But there remains the unfortunate fact that this has been tried and it has not worked.

Tried and not worked, for whom? I know many people who are in college today because there are no fees. It seems to have worked for them just fine. So when you say "it has not worked" - Who exactly has it not worked for? The over-payed politicians?

Breezer wrote: »

I'm not Australian and I have no experience of their education system. I do know that in 2008, Australia had 8 universities in the World Top 200, 6 of which ranked above Trinity and all of which ranked above UCD. By all means, enlighten me as to the damage you say has been done though (preferably on that other thread as we've now gone way off the point of this one).

Well, - For someone who is all in favour of graduate tax, perhaps it might have benefitted you to study where graduate tax has been used elsewhere where you could examine it's merits before jumping on the bandwagon of your party.

In brief - Graduate tax in Australia has lead to the emmigration of many of it's skilled, high-tax paying workers to other countries where there is less tax strain. Now, if you can't see the obvious cons of this such as redistribution of wealth outside of the country, and a categoric failure in the Graduate tax system - then I'm afraid, there's not much more I can say.

Moreover - when you refer to lack of funds in education, even when funds were there - there was lack of investment. Now under the current economic climate, this temporary shift will not be resolved with period-over-time investment, as by the time the funds are received - the recession will be well and truly gone. So Graduate tax really won't resolve the issue IMO.

Breezer

dlofnep wrote: »

Aren't they already contributing greatly to this via high tax?

Yes, and I previously took this line myself. However, despite this, the universities remain underfunded, and I've become convinced that a new solution is needed.

one pays more tax than the other because they opted to further their education.

For a limited time. They will still earn far more overall.

Secondly - it won't actually fund the education system because it creates a brain drain environment

I acknowledged this as a potential flaw earlier in the thread. I'm not convinced that it will happen though. I pointed out 100% mortgages as an example of people opting to stay here despite much crazier charges.

Tried and not worked, for whom?

The chronically underfunded third level colleges, who are now having to slash student services and in some cases entire courses. Who does this benefit?

In brief - Graduate tax in Australia has lead to the emmigration of many of it's skilled, high-tax paying workers to other countries where there is less tax strain.

I remain to be convinced. How many is 'many'? What other factors were at play? I'll certainly look into this though, thank you.

even when funds were there - there was lack of investment.

You're preaching to the choir. But we have to live in the present now. Playing the blame game and not offering practical solutions is akin to saying the bankers should give up all their money to fix the economy. It might make people feel better, it might be right, but it won't solve anything.

by the time the funds are received - the recession will be well and truly gone. So Graduate tax really won't resolve the issue IMO.

Read the policy again. The initial cash injection will come from borrowing on the strength of guaranteed return when the students begin working and paying the tax.

lostexpectation

for how long will they freeze course prices for?

jank

What is it with FG coming out with some really good ideas all of a sudden.:pac:
Fees should never have been scraped in the first place.

However, I would favour the lowering of these fees where there would be a strategic emphasis of the economy of Ireland. Engineering, Medical, IT, Science etc should have be less expensive to encourage people into these sectors. These are the sectors where Ireland's future lies.

I am a great fan of the Arts, the Classics etc but too many 2 bit students are doing courses like these just for the sake of getting a degree.
If someone loves history or Irish I would never stop them, the best and the people who love these subjects will do them anyway. But we need to push the technology centric courses.