Noonan "we cant go mad again"

Outkast_IRE

Idbatterim wrote: »

is the 55k before tax?

Have a look at the document on the susi website, it doesn't clear it up but, I would say that's before tax. If it was after tax you would be on ridiculous money and still be able to get a grant.
http://www.susi.ie/QuickLinks/Income-Thresholds.aspx

p1akuw47h5r3it

Celly Smunt wrote: »

How is this not getting through?

By giving them free college you make and generate money! by charging and applying loans you restrict that money being generated and cut a lump out of income tax intakes.

It's a privilege EVERYBODY benefits from.

If you're paying 1 euro to send them to college you're making 2 euro on them leaving college and reaping extra benefits.

The Uni grad will always benefit more though, at the expense of the people who put them through college.

If everyones standard of living increases, so to does that of the graduate. And if they have more money, they are likely to have more control/power. This is in comparison to the person who put this graduate through University who will not have these things. Therefore the net benefit you talk about essentially cancels itself out, and leaves the Graduate better off.

Scofflaw

realitykeeper wrote: »

The banks were threatening to withhold deposits anyway, - if they weren`t bailed out. The government failed to up the anti with a threat to deprive them of mortgage repayments which would have cost the banks even more than they stood to lose by having to honor their commitments to their depositors. In other words the banks were owed much more than they owed to Irish based depositors and the government could and should have used that fact to force the banks to prioritize Irish based depositors over foreign lenders. Had they done so, the banks could not have carried out their threats and the government would not have had to bail them out.

This appears to be based on the idea that the banks didn't actually need a bailout, and got one by bluffing the government?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The Uni grad will always benefit more though, at the expense of the people who put them through college.

If everyones standard of living increases, so to does that of the graduate. And if they have more money, they are likely to have more control/power. This is in comparison to the person who put this graduate through University who will not have these things. Therefore the net benefit you talk about essentially cancels itself out, and leaves the Graduate better off.

If a country has virtually no universities, and virtually no graduates, there will be no high-tech or other industries which are graduate-dependent. Employment will be limited to primary industry (farming, fishing, mining etc) and basic small business. Where graduates are required, such as geologists for the mines, they will be ex-pats and probably on very high rates of pay to make the positions attractive. There will be no indigenous graduate-oriented companies such as architects, geologists, and a whole plethora of other expert consultancy companies, except where people can afford to go abroad and get a degree - which is to say only the children of wealthy families, or state supporters.

We have a term for such countries, and it's not "wealthy developed countries".

University education is regularly quoted as the strongest example of a positive externality, where the wider societal benefits of educating graduates is larger than the amount spent educating them, and does not accrue solely to the graduates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sarumite

Scofflaw wrote: »

University education is regularly quoted as the strongest example of a positive externality, where the wider societal benefits of educating graduates is larger than the amount spent educating them, and does not accrue solely to the graduates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I couldn't agree more, though our universities are chronically underfunded with students have limited access to current tech equipment in some of the most important subjects such as science and engineering. I would support the introduction of fees not as a replacement for government investment in 3rd level education but as an addition. This additional funding can be used by universities to replace outdated and redundant equipment so that students come out of such fields as science and engineering with relevant skills that are still current in industry.

realitykeeper

Scofflaw wrote: »

This appears to be based on the idea that the banks didn't actually need a bailout, and got one by bluffing the government?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

The banks may have needed a bailout but that was a problem for the banks and their lenders. Had the government been shrewd, that would have remained the case.

realitykeeper

Scofflaw wrote: »

This appears to be based on the idea that the banks didn't actually need a bailout, and got one by bluffing the government?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

The banks did need a bailout but that was their problem. It did not have to become the states problem. The banks did threaten the state with regard to deposits but the state could have countered with a bigger threat. The problem would then become the banks lenders problem. The banks lenders would have retaliated by not lending to the state. This would have led to massive austerity leading to more mortgage defaults and a bigger problem for the banks lenders but at least the taxpayer would not be left to pick up the 60 billion + bill.

So, in addition to the 60 billion + the taxpayer must pay for the banks, they must also pay the 20 billion a year the government borrows to cover the cowardice of avoiding austerity + a massive pre existing national debt. To add to the joy, the country is now once again at the mercy of the markets because the government thought exiting the bailout would look good in the newspapers.

I can`t wait for the interest rates to take off on the bond markets. I just hope the present shower are still in power when it happens.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Scofflaw wrote: »

If a country has virtually no universities, and virtually no graduates, there will be no high-tech or other industries which are graduate-dependent. Employment will be limited to primary industry (farming, fishing, mining etc) and basic small business. Where graduates are required, such as geologists for the mines, they will be ex-pats and probably on very high rates of pay to make the positions attractive. There will be no indigenous graduate-oriented companies such as architects, geologists, and a whole plethora of other expert consultancy companies, except where people can afford to go abroad and get a degree - which is to say only the children of wealthy families, or state supporters.

We have a term for such countries, and it's not "wealthy developed countries".

University education is regularly quoted as the strongest example of a positive externality, where the wider societal benefits of educating graduates is larger than the amount spent educating them, and does not accrue solely to the graduates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but we do have Universities, and did before we had free fees...

I don't disagree there are wide societal benefits to having many graduates*. My point is that it is unfair to have everyone (including non and never to be) graduates paying for someone to go to college to get a degree. That person will always be ahead then the person who did not go to University, and at the expense of that person. Imo it's wrong that someone else should pay for my degree.

We also haven't considered the standard of education received. Personally the facilities in my University (DCU) are pretty poor, something that can only be rectified with increased investment. That investment should come from the students ourselves imo.

*It's also important to note though that saturating a market place with graduates will essentially devalue the prestige in having a degree. If everyone has one well then it's no big deal. This is already starting to happen. There are so many people with degrees that to standout you need a masters/PHD.

Sheldons Brain

My point is that it is unfair to have everyone (including non and never to be) graduates paying for someone to go to college to get a degree.

Given the progressive nature of the Irish tax system graduates probably pay the vast majority of tax while being under-represented in the welfare take.


It seems that graduates remain in demand, it is the less educated that are emigrating.

The number of college graduates employed in the economy has risen in each of the last six years despite the economic downturn. According to research from the Economic and Social Research Institute, there has also been a net inward migration of third-level graduates over the crisis period.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/number-of-college-graduates-employed-in-economy-rises-throughout-recession-1.1631163

The only question is why the economy is not growing given the application of these better educated resources, which should increase productivity.

s mull

In my opinion the Irish economic recovery is under way.

Scofflaw

realitykeeper wrote: »

The banks did need a bailout but that was their problem. It did not have to become the states problem. The banks did threaten the state with regard to deposits but the state could have countered with a bigger threat. The problem would then become the banks lenders problem. The banks lenders would have retaliated by not lending to the state. This would have led to massive austerity leading to more mortgage defaults and a bigger problem for the banks lenders but at least the taxpayer would not be left to pick up the 60 billion + bill.

So, in addition to the 60 billion + the taxpayer must pay for the banks, they must also pay the 20 billion a year the government borrows to cover the cowardice of avoiding austerity + a massive pre existing national debt. To add to the joy, the country is now once again at the mercy of the markets because the government thought exiting the bailout would look good in the newspapers.

I can`t wait for the interest rates to take off on the bond markets. I just hope the present shower are still in power when it happens.

Ah, OK. Well, that's well-trodden ground, although that's a fairly unique take on it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Yes but we do have Universities, and did before we had free fees...

I don't disagree there are wide societal benefits to having many graduates*. My point is that it is unfair to have everyone (including non and never to be) graduates paying for someone to go to college to get a degree. That person will always be ahead then the person who did not go to University, and at the expense of that person. Imo it's wrong that someone else should pay for my degree.

We also haven't considered the standard of education received. Personally the facilities in my University (DCU) are pretty poor, something that can only be rectified with increased investment. That investment should come from the students ourselves imo.

*It's also important to note though that saturating a market place with graduates will essentially devalue the prestige in having a degree. If everyone has one well then it's no big deal. This is already starting to happen. There are so many people with degrees that to standout you need a masters/PHD.

Overall I come to the same point as you. While there are positive externalities associated with educating graduates, the system of no fees tilts the balance too far towards the families of graduates (of course, because it's just a vote-winning measure), while under-resourcing universities by providing them neither with fees nor a replacement income weakens the whole positive externality in the first place.

There was a meeting of the heads of Irish universities in 2004 about the impact on their funding streams. The conclusion, as far as I recall, was that they would have to make up for it by attracting foreign students who pay full fees. Unfortunately, foreign students are attracted by places that will give them 1st class degrees to take home, so the result has been a grade inflation alongside the increased number of graduates, increased number of degree-granting institutions, and under-resourcing.

It's a sort of lose-lose-lose, and the amazing thing is that it happened not under austerity but during the Celtic Tiger. Reminiscent, really, of the abolition of domestic rates.

Another one of those moments when I'm flabbergasted by the combination of Fianna Fáil's sheer awfulness and their traditional status as the default governing party of the country. I can only conclude that we're very very bad at working out what's really good for us collectively as opposed to individually, and that our politicians can always rely on that fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichardAnd

Who is this "we" he's referring to?