Limerick Student Protest

source

Icky Thump wrote: »

yea of course it can be done. but my point is that not every course allows students time to work. im back as a mature student myself and paying fees aswell. im not getting help but ill cope some how. im just saying that its stressful its hard and its should not be the norm. it shpouldnt be normal to live on a couple of hours sleep because your working so much on top of college

You do what you have to in order to live better in the future, I'll take a little saying from the military: Train hard, fight easy....train easy, fight hard.

As for it being stressful, Life is stressful, and life is not easy. As another poster has just stated. If students didn't give off the view that they're breezing through life, and that life for them is one big party, then maybe people will be more sympathetic.

DeWinterZero

Seems some people are forgetting its not the time of the Celtic Tiger any more and seem to think that jobs still grow on trees. Those part time jobs that students took to get through college 5-10 years ago are now being sought by 1000's of other people. The cost of going to college hasn't gone down but the money to pay it has.

Just because the people who are going to fail college are having fun, doesn't mean that those studying hard should be penalised also.

source

DeWinterZero wrote: »

Just because the people who are going to fail college are having fun, doesn't mean that those studying hard should be penalised also.

No, but those "having fun" as you put it, shouldn't be financed by the state to waste time and "have fun".

Icky Thump

sorry kids had to have some lunch:)

@ DeWinterZero
yes thats a good point. ive stated that im in college in waterford. ive applied for countless jobs. for example i appled for a job in a cafe part time and if you knew my background youd know that in normal circumstances id be the ideal candidate. but because i was in college and my part time hours wherent as flexible the job was given to someone else who i know isnt a student. thats not there fault dont get me wrong. buit i know i have more experience and im better qualified than they are but its an employers market and students arent exactly the front of the line for jobs considering that they are in college from 9-5 mon-fri (not exact hours but between those hours) so employers would rather someone with more flexible time.

im finding it difficult to work as are many


@ source
your right that those just in college to have fun and most likely fail shouldnt be financed but you cant paint them all with the same brush.

thats why earlier i said that if a student doesnt keep attendance up and complete each year then they should be billed for their experience.

those who are serious and who keep attendance up, pass exams and finish college with a degree should not be billed as they are going to likely work in their choosed field and generate tax.





also it should be worth pointing out.
if a person chooses not to go to college. lets say they get a job in Dunnes and work away and have a happy life. thats fine. but if that same person went to college and got lets say a business degree and then opened their own shop they could employ maybe 5 people. so instead of that one lad working in dunnes he has now increased the workforce by the 5 people he might employ plus he leaves that dunnes job open for someone else.

the more serious poeple in college the better. the more people that have specialised study leaves the unskilled(no offence) jobs open for others.

this is why i dont think fees should be reintroduced

me in college is for the good of the country aswell as the good of me.

xsiborg

Icky Thump wrote: »

there should never be fees!!!

i keep saying it but il say it again.

i keep saying it but i'll say it again- the economy can no longer afford to sustain payments of fees.

Icky Thump wrote: »

if i stat a job tommorrow in lets say Dell. they have to train me. not even Dell are going to charge m for my training.

no, they wont charge you for your training, hell, they'll even pay for the cost of your training, provided it's beneficial to them in some way, it didnt come without terms and conditions either!

Icky Thump wrote: »

college is training for your future career.

sure some people take the piss and study things that they dont really car aboutan basically plan on never using but its their right if it somthing that can be used.

seriously? so i shoud contribute MY money, to fund somebody else, to do something they have a RIGHT to choose to make use of or not? i really dont think thats going to fly Icky. if im paying for something, guaranteed i'll want to see it being put to good use!

Icky Thump wrote: »

its costing me 53k to get through college. that is alot of money to just magically find.

you're right, it is a lot of money to magically find; finding €20k for your ACTUAL tuition fees, doesnt make it any less magical to find, especially when you expect other people to pay it for you. nobody lands my income in my lap either. i have to work for it, and work hard!

Icky Thump wrote: »

but when im qualified as an architect (hopefully) i will be generating alot of income that will be used as tax.

hopefully, being the operative word there. and your income wont be used as tax, tax is taken FROM your income (which wont leave you with a whole lot either... when you're done paying for other people's tuition fees!)

Icky Thump wrote: »

i will also buy my house car and most likely setle down and start a family. the amount of money that i will end up ploughing into the country from this outcome im sure you can imagine its a great deal with the costs of startig up a family(wedding, kids, schools etc)

i like an optimist too as much as the next guy, who am i to shatter your dreams.

Icky Thump wrote: »

second outcome is i manage to get a job somewhere and end up making my 30k a year(good job) or end up making bad choices and not finding proper work and ending up on the dole.

ok, there goes the optimism then, back to "only option? the dole!", why is that the first option that comes to mind?

Icky Thump wrote: »

surely me going through college would be the better outcome??

it would, if you werent such a pessimist with such a blinkered "two extremes of the scale" viewpoint. my brother qualified and worked for years as a chef, when that went slow, he decided to do an apprenticeship as a fitter with the ESB, when the ESB told him there were no jobs in the ESB when he qualified, he went on to study environmental energy in Athlone. now he's back to cheffing and driving from nenagh to adare to do a 12 hour shift fri, sat and sun, while his wife works mon-thurs so they can "swap shifts" bringing up their one year old.

point being, the key to it is being flexible, adaptable, willing to do whatever is necessary, and then go beyond that if you want to make a life for yourself rather than just píss and moan about "i cant have this, i cant do that", etc.

Icky Thump wrote: »

as i said it costs me 53k for college.

as another poster said- it costs you €20k in college, the rest is supplementary to your lifestyle choices.

Icky Thump wrote: »

if i have no fees then it costs me 33k. thats still alot of money but at least it helps a little???

get a job in tesco, every little helps.

Icky Thump wrote: »

contracts would make it alot stricter and would give an employment feeling

what age is the average higher ecucation student again? three? four?
i really have to question your ideas about what you think being employed means!

Icky Thump wrote: »

rather than the party personna joe public seems to have

i personally never thought for a second that college was all about partying, i know a minority who did though.

i also dont think the majority of students are party persona inclined, therefore to the majority that are determined to further themselves, the abolition of grants, will only be a stumbling block, and not the incredibly momentous hurdle, that a minority of students make it out to be.




i havent the energy nor the time right now to address the points you make in your post above, having been working all day, im glad of a few minutes to sit down and have a coffee before i tackle all the work here that was dropped in during the day while i was out.

xsiborg

aaaanyway, i think source has put it better and more succinctly than i could have put across my viewpoint. i hadnt meant for my initial post in this thread to turn into a "student bashing" fest or a "poor me" poverty píssing contest.

i meant i was merely tired of all these "protests" that achieve nothing only to suck the life out of the city, "occupy some street nobody gives a toss about" protest, "how dare you cut off our free money" protest, and in january after the budget, guaranteed the city will be blocked up again by some other numpty crowd protesting about budget cuts.

enough already with the protests, they achieve very little in the way of progress, if at all, and surely we all have better things to be doing, like just getting the hell on with our lives and managing as best we can in the currently volatile and turbulent economic climate.

highlydebased

touts wrote: »

Great start to the Christmas party season for the Pubs in Limerick city centre. There will be frantic stocking up today. 2:30 is a bloody early start though even for the hardest drinking students. It'll start to get messy in the city by 7:00pm.

lol, don't know many students who can afford to go drink in pubs!

xsiborg

highlydebased wrote: »

lol, don't know many students who can afford to go drink in pubs!

i dont know ANY students that can afford to go drink in pubs, afford being the operative word there, because so many of them instead of using their maintenance grant to buy food, pay rent, etc, use it to go drinking instead. priorities, eh?

but hey, who am i to say what anyone else has a RIGHT (apparently!) to do with MY money. i'll just shut up and continue to hand it over then, shall i?

no, i didnt think so either.

Icky Thump

wow your annoying.

i havent found one thing in what your saying that actually makes sense.


get a job in tesco??? as was said students cant get jobs at the moment and ive tried dear god ive tried. in fact the only way im surviving is the odd bit of work i pick up every so often. but im trying not to be personal when it comes to this topic and prefer to keep this about he general student. talking about my situatin is just one example in a million others.


you said ive gone right back to the dole route..................... please read before posting. i said that i could end up with a good job or i could end up on the dole. they are two options. i would repeat that sentecnce over and over again but im getting the feeling your stuborn. albeit i respect that because im pretty stuborn myself:)


as for you constantly saying your paying for students why dont you sit down and star getting the brain working and then think what your actually paying for................. your paying for Roads, medical, education etc.

as Kess above mentioned 80% of what is spent on education goes to wages. so 80% of what your paying towards education is going towards wages.


get off the high horse mate. ive paid MY fair share of tax and i will do again.

as you said "i'll just shut up and continue to hand it over then, shall i?" well if you dont like it do something about it

what annoys me is people like yourself who will bitch and moan and say something is not right and then when people protest about it youll say "whats the point??" and you accept it


attitudes like that are the reason this country has been screwed over.

take a long look in the mirror mate because you gotta change that attitude.

we have to fight for whats not right. not just accept it.

protesting causes awareness. it might not sove an issue but it brings it to light. it sure a hell does a lot more to resolve an issue than the "whats the point" moto

xsiborg

Icky Thump wrote: »

wow your annoying.

thank you!

Icky Thump wrote: »

i havent found one thing in what your saying that actually makes sense.

just so you know, i took the time to read your posts at least three or four times EACH, so i could understand where you were coming from.

Icky Thump wrote: »

get a job in tesco??? as was said students cant get jobs at the moment and ive tried dear god ive tried. in fact the only way im surviving is the odd bit of work i pick up every so often. but im trying not to be personal when it comes to this topic and prefer to keep this about he general student. talking about my situatin is just one example in a million others.

try the "need a job" thread on this very forum, or next time you're down around harveys quay, dunnes stores are hiring. also the sky shop up near the train station is hiring.

Icky Thump wrote: »

you said ive gone right back to the dole route..................... please read before posting. i said that i could end up with a good job or i could end up on the dole. they are two options.

you wouldnt consider the dole an "option" if you had the right attitude.

Icky Thump wrote: »

i would repeat that sentecnce over and over again but im getting the feeling your stuborn. albeit i respect that because im pretty stuborn myself:)

admittedly yes, i am stubborn, but also determined and passionate, and certainly as i consider my time a valuable commodity as my money, i'll only spend it on someone i think is worth that investment, hence why i made my excuses for not being able to discuss the points you made in your other post, but i still consider you articulate enough to entertain discussion.

Icky Thump wrote: »

as for you constantly saying your paying for students why dont you sit down and star getting the brain working and then think what your actually paying for................. your paying for Roads, medical, education etc.

i AM thinking about what im actually paying for, but those are not relevant to this current discussion, so i left them out, instead what's relevant here is what YOU are asking me to continue paying for. the government doesnt think i should continue to pay it, and while i tend to disagree with the government on a lot of things, im totally with them on this one.

Icky Thump wrote: »

as Kess above mentioned 80% of what is spent on education goes to wages. so 80% of what your paying towards education is going towards wages.

i dont have a problem with this, my mother was a primary school teacher for nigh on 30 years, is now retired, but i witnessed the work she put in on a daily basis, even during her "holidays". if the education budget for the other 20% can be better directed to upgrade school facilities instead of funding your decision to further your education, then im all for it.

incidentally, my mother studied to be a teacher in Mary I, and then when she qualified, she used her earnings to put her brother and sister through Mary I, and they too, are now teachers. she wanted me to be a teacher, but i quite quickly told her- "you couldnt pay me enough!".

and when i worked in dell, i met plenty of sub teachers that were put on "waiting panels" until a position became available. see? alternative employment to what they had trained and studied for, because they too were faced with the choice to "go on the dole", or seek alternative employment.

Icky Thump wrote: »

get off the high horse mate. ive paid MY fair share of tax and i will do again.

im not on any high horse, but i wont ask you to jump from the self-entitlement gravy train either.

there is no such thing as your "fair share" when it comes to taxation, you'll understand this concept better when you are actually employed, and living in your house, with the car, the wedding and the kids.

Icky Thump wrote: »

as you said "i'll just shut up and continue to hand it over then, shall i?" well if you dont like it do something about it

i dont have to, the government is doing something about it for me.

Icky Thump wrote: »

what annoys me is people like yourself who will bitch and moan and say something is not right

touché.

Icky Thump wrote: »

and then when people protest about it youll say "whats the point??" and you accept it

no, i will say what's the point in protesting? look what happened with the london riots and in greece, that was "real" productive, wasnt it?

but yes, i do accept that you are going to protest anyway, regardless of my opinion.

Icky Thump wrote: »

attitudes like that are the reason this country has been screwed over.

no, its attitudes like "we'll go on the dole if you dont give us what we want!", that are the reason this country has been screwed over.

Icky Thump wrote: »

take a long look in the mirror mate because you gotta change that attitude.

*cough cough*.

Icky Thump wrote: »

we have to fight for whats not right. not just accept it.

im a pacifist, i prefer to work with what im given, to create something i CAN work with.

Icky Thump wrote: »

protesting causes awareness.

protesting causes people who are inconvenienced by a cause they do not support, to become irate.

Icky Thump wrote: »

it might not sove an issue but it brings it to light.

i was acutely aware of the difficulties of funding my further education while you were still receiving free education from the state in primary school.

Icky Thump wrote: »

it sure a hell does a lot more to resolve an issue than the "whats the point" moto

that remains to be seen, particularly in this case. if these protests manage to reverse the governments decision, i'll say it here now and you can hold me to it- i'll eat my mortarboard hat!

Iang87

i agree with xsiborg.

The pretty simple point coming across is the money isn't there to sustain all these people going to college.

It is a right to go to college however it also needs to be stated its a privelege tobe in a position that you can go to college, that needs to be remembered by students who go cos theres nothin else to do

Agent_99

I'm not your typical student, having left school at 16 did a PLC course for 2 years and then went into the workforce, I worked continuously for 22 years paying taxes, VAT stamp duty without asking the government for any assistance have been made redundant twice without any redundancy monies due to the time frame for statutory redundancy payments and having interrupted work history having kids etc....
I decided to return to college so I could improve my chances of getting a enjoyable well paid job in a field that is a bit more specialized and hopefully will keep me employed. I have 25 contact hrs per week in college but they are over a 4 day period 9-6, i am lucky enough that I have a light day on Friday. I have 4 Lab reports per week taking at least 2 hours each so that equals min 42 hrs per week before I even do any extra reading/studying.
I still have to go home each night and become "Mum" again school runs and training sessions at weekend for my boys. I have not been a burden to the country i have been an asset Why should I have to pay fees and now I just want to finish my Degree without the threat of fees being held over my head so I can get on with life, work and being able to afford to sent my own 2 kids to college.
Believe me that "student life" is not all parties and drinking, my working days were easier as I could switch off at night and book holidays when i needed days off.

osarusan

xsiborg wrote: »

but hey, who am i to say what anyone else has a RIGHT (apparently!) to do with MY money. i'll just shut up and continue to hand it over then, shall i?

It's not your money. You pay tax to the government, who allocate it as they see fit. Your only real say in how it is spent is through your vote.

And yes, you will continue to hand it over, as you're legally obliged to do so. Try telling the taxman you're refusing to pay tax because you don't like students getting anything, and see where you end up.

And on the other side of the argument, you only have a 'right to free [third level] education' because the government gives you that right. If they decide not to do that any more, students no longer have that right. It is by no means an inalienable right. It does not exist in many other countries in the world, and hasn't always existed in this country.

xsiborg

Agent_99 wrote: »

I'm not your typical student, having left school at 16 did a PLC course for 2 years and then went into the workforce, I worked continuously for 22 years paying taxes, VAT stamp duty without asking the government for any assistance have been made redundant twice without any redundancy monies due to the time frame for statutory redundancy payments and having interrupted work history having kids etc....
I decided to return to college so I could improve my chances of getting a enjoyable well paid job in a field that is a bit more specialized and hopefully will keep me employed. I have 25 contact hrs per week in college but they are over a 4 day period 9-6, i am lucky enough that I have a light day on Friday. I have 4 Lab reports per week taking at least 2 hours each so that equals min 42 hrs per week before I even do any extra reading/studying.
I still have to go home each night and become "Mum" again school runs and training sessions at weekend for my boys. I have not been a burden to the country i have been an asset Why should I have to pay fees and now I just want to finish my Degree without the threat of fees being held over my head so I can get on with life, work and being able to afford to sent my own 2 kids to college.
Believe me that "student life" is not all parties and drinking, my working days were easier as I could switch off at night and book holidays when i needed days off.

while i understand and empathise with the predicament you find yourself in, the simple fact of the matter is that the state can no longer afford you the luxury of contributing towards your choice to better yourself. it really IS that simple. think of it this way- if your child asks you for money for summer camp say for example, and you cannot afford it, and your says- "but i went last year", you can only simply turn around and say- "well that was LAST year, when i could afford to send you to summer camp, this year i cannot afford to send you to summer camp, because the money simply isnt there!".

same principle applies to state funding for third level fees- the money simply isnt there any more, and no amount of heel kicking or protesting is going to make it appear magically out of thin air.

its unfortunate and like i said, i understand your frustration, but that is simply the facts of the matter.

source

So how many turned up for this and how did it go down?

xsiborg

osarusan wrote: »

It's not your money. You pay tax to the government, who allocate it as they see fit. Your only real say in how it is spent is through your vote.

And yes, you will continue to hand it over, as you're legally obliged to do so. Try telling the taxman you're refusing to pay tax because you don't like students getting anything, and see where you end up.

as i am self employed, yes, it IS my money. i understand my legal obligations to pay tax on income earned, but that is not the argument here. (thanks for the first year biz org lesson anyway).

i never once said i dont like to see the students getting anything, in fact im glad you brought that up, i can see where the confusion might arise. i am more than happy to lend my individual support to anyone i see trying to better themselves, in fact i've helped many of my friends in third level education to complete assignments and thesis' and so on.

what i am simply trying to say here, is that i currently do not have the financial resources at my disposal to continue to financially support those who wish to better themselves by attending third level education. i completely agree with those who say that it is unfortunate that we cannot continue to fund students in their pursuit of knowledge. if you knew me at all, im all about giving back, i never forgot where i came from, but i cannot afford to give any more financial support. i too have my own financial commitments, i must place priority on those before i can afford to think about giving to others.

one of those as you quite rightly pointed out, is my annual tax bill, and then i will have to budget for the year ahead to see are there any alternatives or avenues available to me to increase revenues.

this is what students will have to do when their funding is cut, or their fees are increased. they will have to find alternative means of generating income. the more resourceful and determined ones will, the lazier ones will simply drop out and join the ever increasing dole queues (seems to be the most popular alternative put forward, but theres an argument for another thread right there).

at least they CAN claim social welfare. if my business goes tits up in the morning, i can claim nothing from the state.

osarusan wrote: »

And on the other side of the argument, you only have a 'right to free [third level] education' because the government gives you that right. If they decide not to do that any more, students no longer have that right. It is by no means an inalienable right. It does not exist in many other countries in the world, and hasn't always existed in this country.

thank you for putting this out there, echoes my sentiments exactly.

xsiborg

source wrote: »

So how many turned up for this and how did it go down?

given that they even had to lay on buses for students within a two mile radius of the town to try to get them to go, i cant image there was a huge attendance.

i did see however only a small handful of students walking down from Mary I as i went to collect my son from school.

this is what gets on my tits aswel though, when i read the poster in the OP i thought "buses laid on... from UL? LIT? all within walking distance?", if the students were any way passionate about their cause, they would have WALKED in from UL and LIT, their banners and placards held up all the way in, to get as much exposure as possible for their cause!

i can just imagine- "im not going to any protest in town! oh buses laid on, saves me a walk i suppose!".

tiannamen square it aint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

The Snipe

source wrote: »

So how many turned up for this and how did it go down?

Good few there actually! Went very well, I've photos that I'll be uploading later!

PJTierney

I was at one of these a few years ago when I studied in LSAD, would like to see today's pics to see the difference in attendance. Was everybody asked to wear red again?

The Snipe

Most of them were wearing a sloganed red t-shirt.

osarusan

xsiborg wrote: »

what i am simply trying to say here, is that i currently do not have the financial resources at my disposal to continue to financially support those who wish to better themselves by attending third level education. i completely agree with those who say that it is unfortunate that we cannot continue to fund students in their pursuit of knowledge. if you knew me at all, im all about giving back, i never forgot where i came from, but i cannot afford to give any more financial support. i too have my own financial commitments, i must place priority on those before i can afford to think about giving to others.

one of those as you quite rightly pointed out, is my annual tax bill, and then i will have to budget for the year ahead to see are there any alternatives or avenues available to me to increase revenues.

But the fees we're talking about come from revenue raised by the government. That's what the protest is about- the government (or at least the junior partner in it) possibly reneging on an election pledge not to reintroduce fees.

Any other support you might volunteer (financial or otherwise) is, in your own words, 'not the argument here.'

tuxy

XiledSniper wrote: »

Good few there actually! Went very well, I've photos that I'll be uploading later!

I just happened to see this as I was in the city today. The turn out seemed small but loud(they had megaphones)

xsiborg

osarusan wrote: »

But the fees we're talking about come from revenue raised by the government. That's what the protest is about- the government (or at least the junior partner in it) possibly reneging on an election pledge not to reintroduce fees.

this thread is going in a circular fashion now, as i posted at the befinning osarusan- election, promises! they go hand in hand, politicians making promises they know they wont be able to guarantee is as old as time itself, this really shouldnt come as a shocker to anyone, and yet there are still a few people out there that will blindly put their faith in them in the vain hope that their main interest will not be in feathering their own nests.

osarusan wrote: »

Any other support you might volunteer (financial or otherwise) is, in your own words, 'not the argument here'.

true, i only volunteered the information because i may have come across in this thread as an unsympathetic hard-ass, which couldn't be further from the truth. i simply disagree with the idea of protesting as a method to achieve the students aims. there are some brilliant minds in third level education, surely they could come up with a multitude of alternatives to the current predicament the students find themselves in.

i watched a program last night on how drogheda is trying to foster entrepreneurship in the town to get the local economy going, and they were in a school where the students were enrolled in the young entrepreneurs competition. some of these students their enthusiasm and ideas were brilliant.

this idea is what limerick needs, the motivation to uplift the local economy, that's why i applauded Zuroph's Zombie Walk idea, it was something positive that everyone could get involved in, and it made a lot of money for charity and people had fun!

the protests brought negativity into the city and isnt there enough of it already? that was MY main point! the students surely could have come up with hundreds of positive alternatives that would have made people get behind their cause, rather than just the easy- "lets stand on o connell street in the píssing rain, with a couple of megaphones!". people stop listening when you shout at them. come up with an idea to get them involved and make it fun, and people will get your message a whole lot clearer!

Icky Thump

xsiborg wrote: »

given that they even had to lay on buses for students within a two mile radius of the town to try to get them to go, i cant image there was a huge attendance.

i did see however only a small handful of students walking down from Mary I as i went to collect my son from school.

this is what gets on my tits aswel though, when i read the poster in the OP i thought "buses laid on... from UL? LIT? all within walking distance?", if the students were any way passionate about their cause, they would have WALKED in from UL and LIT, their banners and placards held up all the way in, to get as much exposure as possible for their cause!

i can just imagine- "im not going to any protest in town! oh buses laid on, saves me a walk i suppose!".

tiannamen square it aint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

you seen only a few students heading down from the smallest college in limerick.

also the buses being layed on would have been a request from the gardai. could you imagine roads from UL, LIT and Mary I all being taken up by protests?? trafic would definitly be hit by that. that being said i dont know if the buses did go or if anyone did show up. im in college in waterford so we have our own stuff here besides the dublin protest.

to be honest i dont like the idea of protesting myself as i dont think we should make the public suffer. but i do believe in the right to protest.

also as another poster mentioned its not YOUR money that your giving to the students. your paying tax. regardless of what that tax is used for.

ill ask you this since to be fair you seem like a genuine person who has an opinion and not someone(who admitidly) i thought was just argueing for the sake of it(alot like that around here). do you think if the government introduced fees and got rid of grants that the tax would come down any bit?? or even not go up any more??

the governemt are trying to make more money thats all. they are trying to suck every last cent out of this country before the inevitable coupe.

xsiborg

Icky Thump wrote: »

do you think if the government introduced fees and got rid of grants that the tax would come down any bit?? or even not go up any more??

the governemt are trying to make more money thats all. they are trying to suck every last cent out of this country before the inevitable coupe.

i think the introduction of fees and the abolition of grants is only the tip of the iceberg.

i totally agree with you that not only are the government trying to save money, but that they are trying to make more money.

these hair-brained ideas are only to appease our new EU overlords. the government knows that it is WELL up the proverbial creek without a paddle, so they'll muddle through their term in office, be seen in the media to make a few symbolic gestures, pay lip service to the ideals of those gullible enough to believe them, all the while making hay while the sun shines as such, til the next election rolls around and they get kicked out, and then they get positions like "public interest director" (no, i never heard of this "makey uppy" position either!) in the banks- Alan Dukes, former FG leader, in 2008 appointed "public interest director" in Anglo.


you really couldnt make this stuff up!

RonMexico

And the politicians you complain about have contempt for the public because they know that we are a servile nation who abhor the idea of going out and protesting against them. Then people wonder why we are in this state of affairs...

bigpink

there was about 200 at it

xsiborg

RonMexico wrote: »

And the politicians you complain about have contempt for the public because they know that we are a servile nation who abhor the idea of going out and protesting against them. Then people wonder why we are in this state of affairs...

i dont wonder at all, i know only too well that politicians dont give a fiddlers about a couple of people making noise outside the dail gates, their self-serving attitude should be obvious to all at this stage.

that is why no matter how much we protest, it will fall on deaf ears. people are only too aware of the problems that students face with funding their third level education, most of them have been through it already and faced the same difficulties and obstacles, and had to overcome them! that's why i don't agree that we are a servile nation, i think we just have apathetic politicians.

like i said, i personally work with what im given, to create something i can work with. i try to give back where i can and i try to help and encourage others i see with potential, as best i can as an individual.

they say charity starts in the home, i say change starts in the home. then you can go on to conrtibute to change in your community, and then, you can make changes at national level.

what im saying is- work from the bottom up, not the top down. you won't change the status quo in dail eireann unless you foster change at a local level first.

tl;dr- off topic post, carry on...

gaf1983

xsiborg wrote: »

at least they CAN claim social welfare. if my business goes tits up in the morning, i can claim nothing from the state.

Self employed people do have rights to social welfare, albeit that they are fewer than employees. Self employed people also pay less social insurance than employed people.

My own view is that grants shouldn't be abolished for those deserving them, I also think that fees should be brought in along with a loan system or graduate tax.

xsiborg

gaf1983 wrote: »

Self employed people do have rights to social welfare, albeit that they are fewer than employees. Self employed people also pay less social insurance than employed people.

swings and roundabouts, i couldnt avoid individual anecdotes if i was to comment on this, but each option, employee or self employed has it's own advantages and disadvantages, and not just from a financial aspect either.

gaf1983 wrote: »

My own view is that grants shouldn't be abolished for those deserving them, I also think that fees should be brought in along with a loan system or graduate tax.

are grants not means tested already and given to those deemed deserving of them? i only ask because im not too well up on how the system may have changed since, but grants were means tested back in my day.

i am only too well aware of this as bizarrely enough, even though i'd moved out at 16 and was working in supermacs at the same time as i was finishing my secondary education, the merits of my application were still judged on my parents income, and my application was turned down. as i mentioned before- my mother was a teacher, my father was self-employed, and they were only slightly above the maximum income threshold. the fact that i had to make a daily round trip from portlaoise to carlow was also deemed irrelevant.

where would the money come from for a loans system though? and can you expand on the idea of a graduate tax?





EDIT: Interesting Proposal, but given that we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the recession, it'd untimately be an unworkable solution with so many graduates not being able to get employment in ireland in their respesctive fields. a job in supermacs isnt going to give the potential return on investment a graduate could have had if they were able to gain employment in their chosen field of study.

a typical example being the poster who is currently studying architecture, i know of two cases of two architect friends of mine- one has lost his job after 20 years in the industry, my younger friend has decided to become self-employed after only two years with a company when she was made redundant. in the first case, it's quite possible that my friend could have paid back the graduate tax, in the second case, it's a highly unlikely and unworkable prospect.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_tax

Benefits

A graduate tax would allow education to be free at the point of delivery. Proponents claim that one benefit of a graduate tax is that it would prevent a market in higher education developing whereby students chose where and what to study based upon the ability to pay rather than academic ability. A graduate tax might raise more money for universities over the long term than capped tuition fees, depending on the level of the cap. David Greenaway, a critic of a graduate tax admits that an "obvious attraction" of such a tax is that it is levied only on graduates, the immediate beneficiaries of higher education.

Under the NUS's proposals a 'People's Trust' would be set up that would be independent of the Treasury. The current system of loans has been seen as unviable because they require an expensive public subsidy to universities. David Willets has described how a rise in tuition fees would increase public spending: "It is in such delicate equilibrium that shifting any single element requires us to shift everything else. If fees were to go up, the government would have to lend people the money to pay for them - and that would push up public spending....It's not just that students don't want to pay higher fees: the Treasury can't afford them. So the arrangements we have now are clearly unable to respond to the current economic climate."

A graduate tax may not be perceived to be a debt in the same way as a student loan is. Vince Cable states that "[the current system] reinforces the idea that students carry an additional fixed burden of debt into their working lives. Yet, most of us don’t think of our future tax obligations as 'debt'."

Criticisms

The graduate tax could create several perverse incentives. For example, graduates of UK universities would have an incentive to move away from the UK after graduation to countries where it would be difficult or impossible to collect the graduate tax. The Russell group of universities claims that this could "deprive the UK of vital skills and knowledge". Further perverse incentives may be present, depending on the details of how the scheme is implemented. If the tax is levied only upon students who graduate, then some students would have an incentive not to graduate after having completed their courses of study. If the tax is levied only upon students who graduate from UK institutions, then some students would have an incentive to transfer from UK universities to foreign institutions for their final year(s) of study.

A graduate tax breaks the link between the actual cost of a degree and the amount the graduate pays for it. Some graduates would end up paying more in taxes than their degrees actually cost, while others would pay less. The Russell Group claims that this situation "would be unreasonable and likely to be seen by many as unfair".

Because individual universities will not derive any direct financial benefit from becoming more attractive to students, the graduate tax would "provide little incentive or adequate resource for universities to drive up quality" according to the Russell Group.

Criticisms include the transitional problems which exist where students are going through university but not paying the tax. Free-market thinkers have criticised the graduate tax for not creating a market based element in higher education. Alistair Jarvis of the 1994 Group of research universities has stated: "Any mechanism that prevents variable fees and the functioning of a regulated market would be damaging to the sector...We strongly support a regulated market because this is the best way to drive up excellence in research and teaching, and to deliver student satisfaction. A system of variable fees has been, and remains, the correct strategy. This system should be developed, rather than fundamentally changed."

It has also been argued by The Independent that it is too early to change the system again in the United Kingdom. Greenaway argues that a graduate tax would not deliver additional resources rapidly and that there is a potential problem of 'leakage' with EU nationals leaving the UK and therefore not paying the tax. A graduate tax is unpopular with Russell Group Vice-Chancellors as it would likely result in a more equitable distribution of research funding towards less prestigious universities.

Nicholas Barr, professor of public economics at the London School of Economics has praised the current system of student loans as a method of financing higher education, arguing that variable fees foster competition that is of benefit to both students and employers.

Another problem concerns how foreign students at UK universities and emigrants from Britain would be treated by the tax.

Madsen Pirie of the free-market Adam Smith Institute, writing in The Daily Telegraph, argues that it is wrong for talented graduates to face higher taxes under a form of progressive taxation and that such a proposal might make emigration more appealing to graduates. A loan can also be paid off early whereas a tax would continue to be charged for a longer period of time.

The Universities and Colleges Union, a supporter of free higher education has criticised a graduate tax. Sally Hunt has criticised the tax as a rise in fees by stealth: "All the polls show that the general public will not stomach a rise in university fees. If the Government thinks it can get the public to swallow higher fees as some sort of graduate tax, it is living in a dream world. We need a proper debate on how to fund our universities, not an exercise in rebranding. We will judge the plans on what they actually do and whether or not students will be forced to pay more, not how the Government markets them."[16]

Republic of Ireland

A graduate tax has also been proposed in the Republic of Ireland. Since 1995, the Free Fees Initiative has meant that almost all students in the Republic of Ireland from the European Economic Area and Switzerland do not have to pay fees, with the government paying them on their behalf. However, they must pay a student contribution (formerly called the student services charge and informally called the registration charge) which for the 2010/11 academic year was set at a maximum rate of €2,000 (up from €1,500 in the 2009/10 academic year). Many students from lower-income families can get grants to cover this and other costs (such as academic field trips), as well as a maintenance grant.

In March 2009, the largest opposition party in Dáil Éireann, Fine Gael, proposed a "graduate contribution scheme" to replace the current system. In their policy document, The Third Way, they proposed a system that would be automatic and universal (apply to all graduates regardless of wealth) and amount to 30% of the total cost of their third-level education. They also proposed to abolish the student contribution so that education was free at the point of delivery.

The contribution would be collected via the PRSI system and be ring-fenced for third-level education. There would be no interest charged on the contribution and it would not be introduced retrospectively. There would be a minimum rate of repayment set by the State but the graduate could increase this if they wished.

The scheme appeared in Fine Gael's 2011 general election manifesto. As part of the coalition deal between Fine Gael and Labour following the election, they committed to 'Undertake a full review of the Hunt and OECD reports into third level funding before end of 2011.' They said that their 'goal is to introduce a funding system that will provide third level institutions with reliable funding but does not impact access for students.'

In the run-up to Budget 2012 in December 2011, the Department of Education has been examining a number of models of funding for third level education, including a return to fees, a student loan system (similar to the UK or New Zealand) and a graduate tax.