Education is a privilege, not a right.

cuckoo

Looks like the debate is back on - can this please be left unlocked as i am enjoying it?

*puts the popcorn in the microwave*

Lemming

ItalianStallion wrote:

well, no. europe's real growth rate is 2.4% while the US boasts of 4.4% according to the world fact book online.

Ok, firstly IS ... will you please learn how to quote properly. It makes reading posts so much less painful and easier to follow/answer.

Secondly, I'm going to point out a fallacy in your comparison.

US economy figure. Europe errr .....
US economy figure. Europe err ......

Want to tell me what's wrong with this picture?

There is no "European growth" figure. Europe is not a single federal entity (at least not yet). Which country in Europe are you referring to when seeking to contrast with US growth figures? Are you referring to an average? If so, which countries were used to give that average? Please indulge us.

Can you please provide a link to these figures you're getting to coroborate them?

but the quality of the goods sold in your supermarkets is generally of lower grade. there is not much selection but i agree about the demand thing. The Irish dont seem to have that highly of a developed culinary culture as we do in America.

*SNORT*
That's quite an opinion you have of yourself. Lets see ... where do I start here. Ok, quality of goods in supermarkets. You may or may not be aware that Ireland's best produce is exported, which would account for quality of Irish beef (for example) in Ireland not being as good as the quality of Irish beef (again sticking with this example) found in a US supermarket.

Next up comes your culinary commentary. Consider the size of the US. Consider the size of Ireland. Per ratio of population density and size, our culinary culture is probably better than yours. I have no figures to back this up so this is unsubstantiated. But consider the following:

a) Demographic size
b) Demographic density
c) Economic size
d) Market prices

I could point you to dozens of different ethnic restaurants in Dublin alone. Dozens. I can walk into 'standard' supermarkets and find ingredients for almost any dish I want to make. Granted, some things I might need to wander into one of the Asian markets, but nonetheless they exist so these items are freely available over the counter.

ApeXaviour

DB and I had had a chat and came to the compromise that the thread could be re-opened if it was moved to a more suitable forum. We decided politics was best suited.

To the politics mods and posters, I hope you don't mind this intrusion. Please don't think we're "dumping" this on you. It's a lively, civil and intelligent debate, but a little intense for our tame board. Do with it as you wish.

ApeXaviour

ApeXaviour wrote:

DB and I had had a chat and came to the compromise that the thread could be re-opened if it was moved to a more suitable forum. We decided politics was best suited.

To the politics mods and posters, I hope you don't mind this intrusion. Please don't think we're "dumping" this on you. It's a lively, civil and intelligent debate, but a little intense for our tame board. Do with it as you wish.

I got bored after page 5 tbh,and if this thread had originated here it would not have survived with all the posters I'd have had to ban for personal insults.

I'm leaving it open right now but posters who want to continue the discussion here on this board please read the posting guidelines sticky as personal insults and other infractions will lead to bannings.

ItalianStallion

Lemming]Ok, firstly IS ... will you please learn how to quote properly. It makes reading posts so much less painful and easier to follow/answer.

Secondly, I'm going to point out a fallacy in your comparison.

US economy figure. Europe errr .....
US economy figure. Europe err ......

Want to tell me what's wrong with this picture?

There is no "European growth" figure. Europe is not a single federal entity (at least not yet). Which country in Europe are you referring to when seeking to contrast with US growth figures? Are you referring to an average? If so, which countries were used to give that average? Please indulge us.

Can you please provide a link to these figures you're getting to coroborate them?

Actually, there is a caculated EU groth rate. It gets announced on the news all the time so i suggest you tune in. I think it was Neil Cavuto on his daily economy report that gave those numbers. They are published by the governments and are public.
to tell you the truth, if you took out the new eastern nations, you would most likely find that number hovering around zero, as europe is on the brink of recession, and has been since the introduction of the euro. Ooh! burns doesnt it!

*SNORT*
That's quite an opinion you have of yourself. Lets see ... where do I start here. Ok, quality of goods in supermarkets. You may or may not be aware that Ireland's best produce is exported, which would account for quality of Irish beef (for example) in Ireland not being as good as the quality of Irish beef (again sticking with this example) found in a US supermarket.

sort of proves my point. the companies export their best produce and save their lesser quality items for where the people dont know any better. the Irish are known for their whiskey and red heads, not their food!

Next up comes your culinary commentary. Consider the size of the US. Consider the size of Ireland. Per ratio of population density and size, our culinary culture is probably better than yours. I have no figures to back this up so this is unsubstantiated. But consider the following:

a) Demographic size
b) Demographic density
c) Economic size
d) Market prices

Sounds like an excuse to me


I could point you to dozens of different ethnic restaurants in Dublin alone. Dozens. I can walk into 'standard' supermarkets and find ingredients for almost any dish I want to make. Granted, some things I might need to wander into one of the Asian markets, but nonetheless they exist so these items are freely available over the counter.

Gee, dozens! well in a city of one million, id expect more then that. they are generally over priced and the portions are generally small too. i live in a city of about 150 thousand where everyone is Mexican, but i believe we have a much better selection of food and resturants. and how many of your common people can afford the resturants? ours are generally full of them. if you think that dunnes stores or tesco's have a great selection, you just go to further prove my point that the Irish generally dont know any better in regards to eating well. this is not meant to inflame any Irish folk, but it was somthing that REALLY bothered me while over there!

Stabshauptmann

You have a problem with our portion sizes? Wanna compare obesity rates?

Stabshauptmann

Lemming, why did you asak IS to learn to quote properly. Why not simply tell him?

To quote type:

{quote=Posters Name} Copy portion of their post here {/quote}

Replacing the { brackets with [ ones.


Btw did nobody else think this was all one big troll? Maybe Im just too cynical.

ItalianStallion

Kaptain Redeye]You have a problem with our portion sizes? Wanna compare obesity rates?

yes, yours are growing at a much faster rate then ours! it is not portion sizes that is doing it though. its the low quality junk food all of y'all seem to be eating.

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Btw did nobody else think this was all one big troll? Maybe Im just too cynical.

Nope, he's the real deal.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=264286

Stabshauptmann

Ok, so supposing this guy is real, *don’t say anything to get banned*, Id like to make a few quick points.

Patriotism is loving a country simply because of the fact that one was born there.

Everything IS has said has been nothing more than an exaltation of why America, and he himself, is better than Ireland/Europe.

It’s a childish argument which I won’t get bogged down in.

The virtues of our little Banana Republic (without the banans) are that we have one of the highest standards of living world wide, though I find this both hard to believe and worrying.
We have full employment.
We have low taxes, compared to our historical rates and European averages.

These stand for themselves and I’m going to draw no comparisons to the USA. Like I said, I think it’s stupid to do so.

I find the argument that Europeans are culturally defective quite amusing. Just think about it. Ancient Rome and Greece, French cuisine, Renaissance Art, Feudalism, a host of different mythologies, Irelands own Celtic heritage.

We make no attempt to achieve a melting pot, a one best culture or a homogenous entity. We are a diverse union of sovereign states.

As for what originally started this thread. Education a right or privilege. The second I saw the riff raff bit I laughed. If I was going to troll the Trinner board that is the exact comment Id make. But if you are serious, I find the idea that you misspelled privilege so god damn ironic I nearly wet myself!

Is there not something in your constitution about all men being created equally, inalienable rights, the pursuit of happiness and all that malarkey? Yet you speak of a special advantage to or enjoyed by an individual class or caste.

If I were to be cynical, and I’m told I’ve a flare for it of late, one might be excused for blaming much of america's woes on the fact that a decent education is restricted to so few.

In Ireland education isn’t free. Since society as a whole benefits from people receiving 3rd level education, society as a whole pays through the tax system.

Also two side notes.
1) You've been shown how to quote, why don’t you. Again, being cynical, one might think you were deliberately trying to get up someone’s back.

2) When you say low quality junk food, do you mean Mc Donald’s and Co.?
Say for simplicity’s sake Ireland has one obese person in every 10. That figure goes up to two, that’s a 100% growth in the number of obese people.
Now say America has 4 in every 10. That grows to 6. That’s only a 50% increase in the number of obese people

BlitzKrieg

Let me see if i have this right. You want 3rd level education to be a privilege not a right, so those who cannot afford it will not waste state funds and will go directly to the workforce. Then you called not one but two posters who opposed your view
orwellian:

your vision is scary. forced nationalizations of property sounds orwellian

your hope for the state involvement in everything is orwellian

the class system is not such a bad thing.

Quck question...have you ever read 1984?

I mean its a wonderful book which describes the world divided into two classes, the party members and the prolateriat.

THe prolateriat (or working class for ease) is ignored by the state, kept ignorant and controlled by fear and propaganda. They are uneducated and have no say in the running of the state.



You feel that by wanting to provide free education, that these 2 posters want to make the working class ignorant? This defies belief!

But wait! By restricting 3rd level education to only those with money (like being a member of a special party :eek: ) the working class is being kept ignorant and essentially out of the loop (you said it yourself, those with money should have more say).


SHOCK!


HORROR!


therefore, your acting Orwellian, not these 2 posters. Oh my! Does it get any worse?

Yes it does, the desire that this education will lead to primarly work and wealth which leads to material goods (like a car) which is total happiness and anyone who doesnt agree to these
goals in life are left wing liberal nuts, hippies or French. Doesnt have the *Controlling Party* stamp that the party had in 1984 but its pretty close.


Hell i wont even go near the spoken word changing the written word debate that was going on.




But if i leave the sarcasm at the door.


As the lovely kaptain redeye said, your in full favour of an American political/educational/economic system.

well to everyone's surprise alot of people here are from the nation state of Ireland. Which despite having the words republic and
democracy in its constitution has an almost completely different political/education/economic system to America. ANd you know what so does France, Germany, THe UK, Italy
and almost everyother democratic state in the world.

No Democratic system has been 100% transported from one nation to another. Democracy is an organic comprimising set of beliefs, its not set in stone, hence why it is so popular compared to fascism and socialism.
And declaring that one nation should take up the economic and educational policies of another nation, because it has done well over there...is stupid. So unless you can give me hard cold facts and figures that say that in the case of IRELAND
university fee's should be abolished i am going to say NO to Fees.


On your quality of food debate...does the USA have GM laws? Are you required by law in the USA to hve organic products in the tin,if the label says so?

On your brief quip on free healthcare? DO you wear glasses? Are you asmathec? How much does that cost without health insurance?



Look i am not trying to make it that the USA is evil, its just a different state to Ireland and in my best southern accent i shall say "We do things differently here boy and we like it that way, and if we want to change it, we'll change it, we dont need some cityslicker like you telling us how to do things"

Lemming

ItalianStallion wrote:

Actually, there is a caculated EU groth rate. It gets announced on the news all the time so i suggest you tune in. I think it was Neil Cavuto on his daily economy report that gave those numbers. They are published by the governments and are public.

Well then, you'll have no problem showing us the links then won't you?

to tell you the truth, if you took out the new eastern nations, you would most likely find that number hovering around zero, as europe is on the brink of recession, and has been since the introduction of the euro. Ooh! burns doesnt it!

Ahh ... so now we're down to speculation on what-might-be if you spin the figures that you so vaunt (yet don't attribute links to as factual evidence). You do know that this kind of crap tends to not stick in a court of law ... you being a "lawyer" and all.

Oops ... did that burn? :rolleyes:

sort of proves my point. the companies export their best produce and save their lesser quality items for where the people dont know any better. the Irish are known for their whiskey and red heads, not their food!

Not really proving any point. It's quite smart actually. And Ireland is well known for some of its produce; namely its salmon which is considered a delicacy the world over (and the fact that yo don't know that for someone who claims to be a food afficiondo shows up your .... 'calibre') and our beef is higly regarded, among others.

Oh, and we haven't loaded our beef with growth hormones either, thus feeding crap into the population at large that is harmful to natural human growth.

Sounds like an excuse to me

Is that the best you can do? "Sounds like" doesn't stick in a court of law either Mr." I'm going to be a super rich lawyer someday".

Gee, dozens! well in a city of one million, id expect more then that. they are generally over priced and the portions are generally small too. i live in a city of about 150 thousand where everyone is Mexican, but i believe we have a much better selection of food and resturants.

Ahh .. "you believe". I see. It's all so clear to me now....

As for my figures, I understated them since better to err on the side of caution than to exaggerate like you do in your blind patriotic fervour. I will say once again, you will find just about *any* food type in the world in Dublin. I'v enever had a problem finding anything.

and how many of your common people can afford the resturants?

"common" people? Wtf is this? The middle-ages? I wont answer that since I don't know how much everyone in this city earns. But most restaurants that I pass seem to be fairly busy if not thriving and rammed.

if you think that dunnes stores or tesco's have a great selection, you just go to further prove my point that the Irish generally dont know any better in regards to eating well.

Ah ah ah ... I never said outright that dunnes or tesco's have a great selection. I said it was possible to find whatever you were looking for here. Not "where" here. I've also noticed that some brances of the same chain will not carry as many items as others simlpy due to the area demographics they serve. But since you mention it, certain stores of the same chain have really good selections of ingredients to use. Then you have the Asian & Slavic markets to add further choice.

I've been in Walmart and to be honest ... I wasn't impressed. Big deal. Do Americans go and buy a different manufacturers product every week because they think "wow what a great choice I have. I think I'll try this one this week"? No, they'll go for the one they've tried and happened to like. Or the one that's on special offer. Just like everyone else.

this is not meant to inflame any Irish folk, but it was somthing that REALLY bothered me while over there!

Using words like "common", "riff-raff", etc isn't meant to offend? Misplaced gloating over how great you are and how crap everyone else is isn't meant to offend? And pigs will f*cking fly.

bonkey

Its funny. Reading this food debate reminds me of a couple of Bill Bryson's articles where, upon his return to the US, he started lauding the variety of everything you can get in the US stores. He was delighted to be back in the homeland where he could buy virtually anything.

Then he shortly went over to asking why it all tasted the same.

He went on about the however-many-it-was cheeses his local Wal-Mart had....and how they all looked, smelled, and tasted virtually indistinguishable.

Variety may be the spice of life, but when its in relation to food, its taste and not packaging which should be the relevant factor.

jc

BlitzKrieg

i must admit i am in new york right now and most of the food (apart from FRANKS PIZZA) tastes horrible...esp the meat.

arrietty

Right. Hi.

I'm not going to try and respond to anything already said here, much as some of it demands response, because I value my sanity, and I don't have six months to spare.

So I'm going back to the original topic. "Education is a privilege, not a right."

Past a certain level of education, I agree. I do not believe that every adult (yes, I'm limiting myself to over-18s here, but bear with me) has the right to university education.

So who should receive this privilege?

Is it the children of people who can afford to pay the necessary fees, however high they are? Is it the people with the best academic record? Is it the people who have the most potential?

I don't disagree with fees. Fact is, a lot of people go to university these days, which costs the state a lot, and some of them can definitely afford to contribute. I'm not getting into figures here, because I'm no economist nor social worker. But the current English system seems quite fair - a sliding scale from zero fees up to about STG£1,200. Fairer still, IMO, is the system (as used in Scotland and Australia) whereby people pay off their fees (generally quite close to the full cost of providing the course, in Australia at least) once they've graduated and secured a well-paying job. That works for me.

And what about living expenses? It costs at the very least seven or eight thousand euros to support yourself in Ireland (if you're living away from home) just during the academic year, depending on where you're living. I qualify for the full maintenance grant, although not the top-up grant, and I'm looking at doing a LOT of part-time work during my degree, since my parents can't help me out much. Waiting tables, behind a bar, filing. Whoop-de-doo. I'm stubborn, and I'm going to work hard, but fact is, I'm going to be expending a lot of effort at university, just to pay the rent. I need to get a 2:1 or a first-class honour, because I'm planning to do postgrad. I don't like to complain about it a lot, because I'll be okay, and a lot of people are far, far worse off than me. But is this fair?

Zombrex

arrietty wrote:

I don't like to complain about it a lot, because I'll be okay, and a lot of people are far, far worse off than me. But is this fair?

The current grant system, in my mind, is very unfair. In my 5 years in college I meet a load of people on the grant and not one of them actually need the grant to come to college. The grant as far as I can tell, simply allows self-employeed parents, who on paper earn very little, to send their kids to college for next to nothing, while people on PAYE struggle. People who actually can't afford to send their kids to college or go themselves still can't afford to send their kids to college or go themselves, on the grant.

Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of free fees and of a grant system. I don't see it in terms of "privilage" or "right", more in terms of an investment by the state in you, which you will return with your high skill level. But the current grant system needs a serious over haul, and I have never had much sympathy for the student union grant protestors crowd. Next time you are at a grant rally ask some people what their parents do. I bet the majority are farmers or other self employeed people. I remember getting a big speal from a girl in my class about how the government were screwing her with the grant, a girl whos father is a self employed photographer who owns 2 BMWs and a holiday home in France. I very much doubt she need the grant (yes her parents supported her in college). I felt like saying to her -

Save the grant! Get off it!

GUBU

ItalianStallion wrote:

the fees keep riff-raff and those who have nothing better to do out.

Surely that's what the points system is for?

AngelofFire

I wouldnt be in university right now, if i had to pay 5000 a year. i come from a working class background, both my parents are unskilled P.A.Y.E workers. A lot of proponents of fees argue that free education helps to subsidise the middle class, i dont believe that this argument holds the water firstly because many people who come up with these arguments aren`t putting forward any methods to ensure a better balance of social classes in higher education. Many of the proponents of the free-fees system(with the exception of the PDs) are the ones arguing for improved grants, and increased investment in access programmes to ensure greater social diversity, a lot of them argue that people on high incomes should pay higher income tax to fund education, these are hardly the type of people that are arguing to subsidise the middle classes. Thirdly it is not realistic to expect that students from low income backgrounds would be sufficently protected if fees were reintroduced, as it stands someone who comes from a family whereby both parents earn the average industrial wage doesnt qualify for a grant, because the threshold is too low, 5000 per year is a huge slice of their income.

When Fees are re-introduced even for those on high income, they create a stigma wherby 3rd level education is only for the middle classes, when fees where brought back in, in Ontario Canada, Austria, and Australia, the amount of people from lower income backgrounds participating in 3rd level decreases.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

I wouldnt be in university right now, if i had to pay 5000 a year. i come from a working class background, both my parents are unskilled P.A.Y.E workers.

then you probably most certainly wouldn't have to pay 5000. Assuming you live at home. what is the gross household income? Would you pay 1000?

A lot of proponents of fees argue that free education helps to subsidise the middle class, i dont believe that this argument holds the water firstly because many people who come up with these arguments aren`t putting forward any methods to ensure a better balance of social classes in higher education.

So what? Though it might be useful, it is not necessary to propose an alternative in order to show that the current system subsidises the middle classes! Showing an alternative isn't proving the complely different point of it helping the better off. However one alternative is immediately apparent with fees; that he better off pay for the less better off!

Many of the proponents of the free-fees system(with the exception of the PDs) are the ones arguing for improved grants, and increased investment in access programmes to ensure greater social diversity, a lot of them argue that people on high incomes should pay higher income tax to fund education, these are hardly the type of people that are arguing to subsidise the middle classes.

Well you would be wrong there! Many in the PD's and FF actually support Access and other programmes you mentioned above and have expanded them! Labour done away with fees and I would ask you who benefitted from that? Did poor people benefit? I suggest they didn't and are no better off for it. But you are making the claim so care to show me how they are better off?
Labour actually cut tax by one percent last time they had finance! But one thing you mention is correct. Labour in government will increase income tax.

Thirdly it is not realistic to expect that students from low income backgrounds would be sufficently protected if fees were reintroduced, as it stands someone who comes from a family whereby both parents earn the average industrial wage doesnt qualify for a grant, because the threshold is too low, 5000 per year is a huge slice of their income.

That ios a relativist position. You can not have it both ways! What is the average industrial wage? I fugure about 600 a week. that is over 30,000 a year! there might also be one or two kids with 100 a week part time. thats 40000 a year. Now do you think say ten per cent say 4000 is a lot from such a household? Thats 1000 less for say half (although it might be way less) of the students coming in each year. A total of about 25 million. so rather than the state paying more why not charge the other half an extra 25 million. the economic truth is that the people who benefit the most from education are those who get it! So rather than tax everyone some of which will not be going to college, why not tax (or charge fees) to those who are using the service. Proposing extra income tax for those who can afford it getting education is a bit like increasing income tax to pay for petrol rather than tax the petrol more on each user.

When Fees are re-introduced even for those on high income, they create a stigma wherby 3rd level education is only for the middle classes, when fees where brought back in, in Ontario Canada, Austria, and Australia, the amount of people from lower income backgrounds participating in 3rd level decreases.

Care to please supply stats to support this? dont forget to show also how the mega rich participation rate decreased because of fees. Bizzare! If true it only shows a reverse snobbery stigma against the middle income groups. In which case I say I will put up with the stigma if it gives more opportunity to poor people.
While you are at it show how the state re introduced fees in the above countries. did they just move the money from the state to the family and cut State funding by the amount they charged in fees or did they maintain the funding level and have fees on top of this funding. I am suggesting proposing we do the latter. This would double the current amount of money in the system. One could also introduce rules to ensure the middle class people who run third level can not award it to themselves in kickbacks and increased salary or increased administration. Just imagine every depasrtment in every University having extra money equal to the total salary of all the admin and all the academics and all the support budget put together. One could do a lot for the poor and needy with that couldn't one?

AngelofFire

So what? Though it might be useful, it is not necessary to propose an alternative in order to show that the current system subsidises the middle classes! Showing an alternative isn't proving the complely different point of it helping the better off. However one alternative is immediately apparent with fees; that he better off pay for the less better off!

Raising taxes for people earning in excess of say 70,000 euro per annum is a way of having the middle classes paying for the less well off, the excess revenue can be used to invest in better grants for people from lower income backgrounds, and access programmes.

Now do you think say ten per cent say 4000 is a lot from such a household?

Yes i do, people dont earn money purely for sundry expenses, having families who earn the average industrial wage pay that much per year, will compound the burden of other expenses like, mortages, electricity bills, insurance and food. I think it would be much fairer to make everyone earning in excess of 70,000 per annum pay an extra 2-3000 in taxation.

Labour done away with fees and I would ask you who benefitted from that? Did poor people benefit?

HEA statistics have actually shown an increase in participation in 3rd level by people from families headed by P.A.Y.E workers. The dramatic increase cant happen instantaneously, Donagh O`Malleys abolition of 2nd level fees was seen as a gift to the middle classes, because 2nd level education wasnt exactly the norm for working class people at the time.

ItalianStallion

I mean its a wonderful book which describes the world divided into two classes, the party members and the prolateriat.

THe prolateriat (or working class for ease) is ignored by the state, kept ignorant and controlled by fear and propaganda. They are uneducated and have no say in the running of the state.



You feel that by wanting to provide free education, that these 2 posters want to make the working class ignorant? This defies belief!

But wait! By restricting 3rd level education to only those with money (like being a member of a special party :eek: ) the working class is being kept ignorant and essentially out of the loop (you said it yourself, those with money should have more say).


SHOCK!


HORROR!


therefore, your acting Orwellian, not these 2 posters. Oh my! Does it get any worse?

Yes it does, the desire that this education will lead to primarly work and wealth which leads to material goods (like a car) which is total happiness and anyone who doesnt agree to these goals in life are left wing liberal nuts, hippies or French. Doesnt have the *Controlling Party* stamp that the party had in 1984 but its pretty close.

calling the class system orwellian is a bit of a stretch. if yow read 1984, you would see that there were three classes, the middle one bing the outer party members. i will defend the claim that huge government buracracies, nationalized everything, poor selection, insane taxation polocies, thought crimes (refers to france, sorry), the illusion that you contribute to policy, huge conglomerations of nations that should be autonomous (the eu) and a people that dont know any better is straight out of 1984! ever have tesco value cofee, soup, bread etc? read "victory" brand.
as for matrealism, your still defending the imposition of policy that tries to force equality by the denial of liberty. it is a trade off that many european seem more then willing to make. imposing policy that judges success by matreal gains is matrealism. judging polocies by their moral and social impact are not. it was good ol' karl who claimed socialists were the ultimate matrealists. imagine that.


As the lovely kaptain redeye said, your in full favour of an American political/educational/economic system.

no, actually i dont believe in democracy, but our rupublic is still the lesser of most of the other evils (we havent sold our freedom to "north america" or some other group)

On your quality of food debate...does the USA have GM laws? Are you required by law in the USA to hve organic products in the tin,if the label says so?

can anyone see the irony here? europe is unwilling to use genetically modifyied crops, but is more then happy to use human babies for expirementation.

On your brief quip on free healthcare? DO you wear glasses? Are you asmathec? How much does that cost without health insurance?

no, but if i was, i have great inshurance. if i was poor, there is a plethora of private instutions and programs. your inner-city tracksuit people have worse medical care then our urban poor. dont believe me? check out life expectancies.



Look i am not trying to make it that the USA is evil, its just a different state to Ireland and in my best southern accent i shall say "We do things differently here boy and we like it that way, and if we want to change it, we'll change it, we dont need some cityslicker like you telling us how to do things"

apparently y'all do!

BlitzKrieg

calling the class system orwellian is a bit of a stretch. if yow read 1984, you would see that there were three classes, the middle one bing the outer party members. i will defend the claim that huge government buracracies, nationalized everything, poor selection, insane taxation polocies, thought crimes (refers to france, sorry), the illusion that you contribute to policy, huge conglomerations of nations that should be autonomous (the eu) and a people that dont know any better is straight out of 1984! ever have tesco value cofee, soup, bread etc? read "victory" brand.
as for matrealism, your still defending the imposition of policy that tries to force equality by the denial of liberty. it is a trade off that many european seem more then willing to make. imposing policy that judges success by matreal gains is matrealism. judging polocies by their moral and social impact are not. it was good ol' karl who claimed socialists were the ultimate matrealists. imagine that.

Saying Tesco is *victory brand* is sweet, what about wal-mart and associated supermarkets or duane reade? why may i ask is tesco victory brand and not these products? Could you please provide some evidence of this claim that europe is this materialistic obbsessed society, Despite the enormous number of cultural events and festivals ranging from a national level to huge international events. Funnily enough and i know your too busy stereotyping us but europe is made of numerous political parties, and very little of good old Karl's teachings seem to be followed in full in europe (nope no revolution of the proletariet, karl said nothing about the government implementing social policies...he must be spinning in his grave.) And while we are using political figures of yesteryear, was it not Jefferson, the architect of the republic you love so much supported the french revolution and considered black people not human.
And in that big chunk of a reply you still havnt explained why it is more orwellian for the government to support educating all parts of its society then to only allow those who can pay.

thought crimes (refers to france, sorry),

evidence please. You could argue that the new amendment outlawing burning of the american flag is a step in the direction of thought crimes.

the illusion that you contribute to policy, huge conglomerations of nations that should be autonomous (the eu) and a people that dont know any better is straight out of 1984!

But the kicker is that the EU is not the all powerful body in each nation. Each nation still holds the right and ability to leave the EU or not accept its policies (example UK with the euro), yes you could say the fact that despite voting against nice the first time the irish public were told to vote again, but changes were made due to the initial 'no' and hopefully something similar will come out of the failure of the constitution vote. and on the illusion element, go to a baseball game and enjoy the hate sessions...

can anyone see the irony here? europe is unwilling to use genetically modifyied crops, but is more then happy to use human babies for expirementation.

can anyone else see what these two topics have in common? And the law i was referring to was that in Europe if you use GM crops you must state so on the product while in America it is possible to put 'organic product' stamped onto your product and still use GM products.

no, but if i was, i have great inshurance. if i was poor, there is a plethora of private instutions and programs. your inner-city tracksuit people have worse medical care then our urban poor. dont believe me? check out life expectancies.

IF you dont have insurance the cost of prescription glasses or medication in the USA is double that of Ireland. How about the fact that if you get shot in washington and dont have insurance they have to drive you to Baltimore because none of the hospitals in Washington will accept patients without insurance.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

Raising taxes for people earning in excess of say 70,000 euro per annum is a way of having the middle classes paying for the less well off, the excess revenue can be used to invest in better grants for people from lower income backgrounds, and access programmes.

How many people on over 70k a year?
How much of a tax increase?
How much gained by that?
How much of that for education?

Yes i do, people dont earn money purely for sundry expenses,

i think you might be pushing it a little to reclassify education as a "sundry expense". Richer people are happy to pay exhorbitant fees for their children to get educated. and poorer people have always valued education for their children as an escape from poverty.

having families who earn the average industrial wage pay that much per year, [4000 euro] will compound the burden of other expenses like, mortages, electricity bills, insurance and food.

Many working class families (indeed the average industrial wage of over 30,000 a year is hardly working class) either have low rent or no mortage. Insurance for what? Everyone pays for electiricity and food. Oh sorry the State also has schemes wherby some people should not have to pay that.

I think it would be much fairer to make everyone earning in excess of 70,000 per annum pay an extra 2-3000 in taxation.

so you suggest we introduce a new top rate of income tax at 70,000? Anyone reaching 70,000 pays say 2500 extra tax. How will this fund the money needed to pay for fees( 50,000 a year @ 5000= 250 million)? and
does the Labour Party really stand by this tax on the 70,000 plus earning civil servants who support Labour

HEA statistics have actually shown an increase in participation in 3rd level by people from families headed by P.A.Y.E workers.

well you claim it so I suppose you will support this with statistics?

The dramatic increase cant happen instantaneously, Donagh O`Malleys abolition of 2nd level fees was seen as a gift to the middle classes, because 2nd level education wasnt exactly the norm for working class people at the time.

I note you quote a Fianna Fail minister from 1966 was it? Now I don't want to go off the point here but care please show me how removing fees at third level helped poorer people who did not pay them anyway?

AngelofFire

How many people on over 70k a year?
How much of a tax increase?
How much gained by that?
How much of that for education?

I dont think public spending across the board is high enough and i firmly believe that people on higher income should pay higher taxes and i make no apology for that view, Mexico spends more money than ireland on education as a percentage of GDP.

think you might be pushing it a little to reclassify education as a "sundry expense"

I never said that, you obviously didnt read my last post correctly.

so you suggest we introduce a new top rate of income tax at 70,000? Anyone reaching 70,000 pays say 2500 extra tax. How will this fund the money needed to pay for fees( 50,000 a year @ 5000= 250 million)? and
does the Labour Party really stand by this tax on the 70,000 plus earning civil servants who support Labour

As a Labour party member i would stand buy it, im not getting into arguments with regards to arithmitic, i`ll leave that one to the Finance spokesperson, i merely gave a rough figure.

well you claim it so I suppose you will support this with statistics?

Go to the HEA website and have a look.

I note you quote a Fianna Fail minister from 1966 was it?

Yes and fair play to Fianna Fail for that, i fully recognise the benefits of what they did.

de5p0i1er

I'm with you there, I work in a factory and there are ppl here with degrees that they don't use because they get better money here it's a waste of public funds to educate everyone and if ppl were made pay for college mabye then we wouldn't have so many drop outs.

bonkey

AngelofFire wrote:

i firmly believe that people on higher income should pay higher taxes

I firmly believe our government should get its act together - regardless of who is in power - and introduce some meaningful plans to increase efficiency of current expenditure before it has the gall to turn around and ask the public for more.

Its a bit like the health-care system only on a larger scale. The govt. eventually realised there that throwing more money into the wrong pit won't solve a damn thing.

Note - I'm not talking about education specifically, but it galls me that the solution to pretty much every issue seems to be "increase taxes so the govt can pay more so we can have this". There are other ways that the govt can pay more - or at least get better value for its money - and its about time that the taxpayer stopped getting treated as the first port of call when a few extra quid are needed.

jc

BlitzKrieg

I'm with you there, I work in a factory and there are ppl here with degrees that they don't use because they get better money here it's a waste of public funds to educate everyone and if ppl were made pay for college mabye then we wouldn't have so many drop outs.

and thats the states fault because?

It is still the peoples choice wether to go to university or not the same as its someones choice to use public transport or not. the majority of irish citizens own cars lets get rid of public transport, so not the waste state funding...of course it is quite clear that despite the majority of people have cars public transport is still used quite alot. Similarily while there are drop outs and people not using their degree's a large number of those who do get degree's puts them to some use. And on the drop out rate.

An average class in the School of visual arts in new york goes from twenty to ten over the space of three weeks, yet these people are paying for this course!


Also just because someone has a degree does not necesarily mean there is a 500k job waiting for them, like a art or illustration degree, will still need to pay the bills while working on their masterpiece or preparing a portfolio.

Zombrex

de5p0i1er wrote:

I'm with you there, I work in a factory and there are ppl here with degrees that they don't use because they get better money here

They might at the moment, compared with a graduate level position, but come back to them in ten years time when they are married and have 3 kids to support and see if they are making more money on the factory floor than someone who got into a career industy.

de5p0i1er wrote:

it's a waste of public funds to educate everyone and if ppl were made pay for college mabye then we wouldn't have so many drop outs.

Where did people get the idea that 3rd level education is free in the country. Its not, even without fees going to college cost a lot of money, especially if you are living away from home. And you still get "so many drop outs", a proportion of which are people who simply can't afford to do it any longer

The Corinthian

ItalianStallion wrote:

thought crimes (refers to france, sorry)

Is that more ‘Freedom Fries’ type jingoism or do you have a more profound explanation to that comment?

no, actually i dont believe in democracy, but our rupublic is still the lesser of most of the other evils (we havent sold our freedom to "north america" or some other group)

Actually you did; to the “United States of America”. Of course, some of the states prior to the union were kind of made up, but not all. Some were quite distinct and independent. You even had a point when a good few of them chose to leave the union and go their own way, and we all know what happened then, don’t we? So I wouldn’t lecture Europeans on the topic of selling freedom, TBH.

can anyone see the irony here? europe is unwilling to use genetically modifyied crops, but is more then happy to use human babies for expirementation.

The World is full of such ironies and paradoxes. Look at the right in the US, who will fervently campaign against euthanasia and abortion, yet will just as energetically support the death penalty. “But that’s different”, I’m sure you’ll say - and perhaps it is, and then so perhaps is stem cell research.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

I dont think public spending across the board is high enough and i firmly believe that people on higher income should pay higher taxes and i make no apology for that view, Mexico spends more money than ireland on education as a percentage of GDP.

But you dont say how much should be paid and who should pay it! remember this above was in response to: How many people on over 70k a year?
How much of a tax increase?
How much gained by that?
How much of that for education?

just saying "rich people should pay more" is not good enough when it is you who are proposing the alternative. I am only claiming we double the amount of money at third level by getting those who use it to pay for some of it while maintaining state funding at the current level. You are proposing a new income tax band. so have you costed this?

As a Labour party member i would stand buy it, im not getting into arguments with regards to arithmitic, i`ll leave that one to the Finance spokesperson, i merely gave a rough figure.

So you are into taxing people more and not saying how much will be given to education? I am not surprised Sinn Féin have the same policy. Tax people more and dont say how much this will raise in revenue or on what it will be spent.

Go to the HEA website and have a look.

For what? You made the claim that taxing 70,000 euro a year households would pay the same amount as fees would. So I asked you tax them by how much?

I am surprised that the Labour Party really stand by this tax on the 70,000 plus earning civil servants who support Labour. Wasn't that the reason for removing fees in the first place? I mean those who didnt have the money had grants and those who were really rich didnt worry about paying. It was the middle income group that got the benefit. Middle income potential Labour voters. And now you want to tax them more? that is a Labour policy is it? Any househole with an incove of 1,200 a week will pay more tax? But how much more? Is it only for education? Remember when the Liberals tried that in the UK? It didnt work.
Maybe it is for health to support the extra 40,000 administrators in the health service over the past decade? So how much extra do you need? You could try a property tax but that was also tried before and with the possibility of hitting middle income voters everyone dives for cover on that.
On the left, only the real hard hitting socialists are not afraid to tax middle income more. and look how many seats they get?
Ironically they win votes from traditional Labour voters. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are not steeped in ecomonic ideology. They are pragmatic. In reality many in Labour are also. you only begin to see it in constituencies where the combined left have a deal more than two quotas. Then they will fight among themselves for a seat. Even better is where Labour are so strong they could have two seats. Then the personality over politics begins. FF and FG to a lesser degree have dealt with this for years. If Labour are ever to become even the second biggest party they will have to move into this mode.

I digress. The point is that to move into this mode questions like "how much more tax will I pay?" and " where will it go?" will have to be answered. You will have to move away from ideology and actually speak your mind to win those votes. And your "fairer society for all" ideas while deserving of applause will come into conflict with which of the two Labour candidates should gain the publicity for the locall GAA club extension. [for "you" read Labour Party canvassers]

Finally, you havent really answered the question. Why is it fairer to add more tax to some people (an unknown amount more) for a service they do not use than to charge the people who use it and directly benefit from it?