Govt reintroducing fees on the sly

Lemming

Originally posted by Cork



" part-time civil servant" must be earning alot. If you are on the average industrial wage - you'd qualify for a job. Working part time - she should have no trouble.

Well, someone here already pointed out that their mother is a civil-servant on a JOB-SHARING scheme ... and isn't entitled.

Cork

Let’s get some facts straight. Higher education maintenance scholarships are means tested. In other words – people who meet certain prescribed criteria obtain them.

In order to do this – their have to submit their relevant P60s. If they are self-employed – they must submit a set of accounts. These accounts would be used for income tax purposes so “cooking d books” is out.

If a self-employed puts up a new building – he can claim capital allowances for tax purposes. It is not allowed as a deduction for higher education grant purposes.

If a self-employed pays loan interest on a loan for this building – he can claim it as a business expense for tax purposes. It is not allowed as a deduction for higher education grant purposes.

If a self-employed pays leasing charges for a piece of machinery – he can claim it as a business expense for tax purposes. It is not allowed as a deduction for higher education grant purposes.

The criteria used for deciding what is your income is for grant purposes is much stricter than for revenue purposes.

So, the grants system is pretty fair?

Well yes, but there is a black economy out there. A teacher giving grinds for example who does not declare it to the revenue or somebody doing nixers.

But – the grants system is pretty fair. Today – we have many double income families who do not qualify for higher education grants, as they do not meet the eligibility criteria. But – it is because their income exceeds these criteria is where the problem lies.

Most average income people do not have much trouble qualifying for grants. I know a few cases where one parent retired as the kids were approaching college. They did their sums and decided that it would not be financially worthwhile for them to continue working.

I know others who turned down promotions in order to qualify for grants. I know many that had to stop going out as they had 3 or 4 kids all in college.

The grants system is working. Free fees is only a “gift horse” for the “well to do”.

I think the government sees this – hence for the rise in registration fees. College tuition fees will still be paid. The government will still be giving away more than what they are getting. But do people realise – how lucky there are – still getting free tuition fees?
Or do they moan & groan?

Back with the "waste" word again.

Richy Rich is going to college next year - His fees will paid for. While at the same time many primary school buildings are in bad state of repair.

Go Figure - Free Frees never made sence.

Lemming

Cork, you (and myself and everyone else) seems to have overlooked one little piece of criteria .....

there are not many "rich" people in this country.

Now, judging from what you're saying, you're in favour of a return to fees ranging in the thousands per year.

So, what we will have is a return to the "good old days", where the rich can still send their kids to school comfortably, those at the lowest ends of the scale can get grants, leaving the MASSIVE middle element to sing from the hymn-sheet "tough f*ck"

JustHalf

Richy Rich is going to college next year - His fees will paid for. While at the same time many primary school buildings are in bad state of repair.

Apples and oranges.

Lawnkiller

Originally posted by Cork


Nonsense.

I disagree - my arguement follows the line that the timing of such a move by the govt. is poor and not very well thought out.

makes sense to me.

hands up anyone else who agrees?

that is all.

sceptre

I don't think anyone sane can disagree with Lawnkiller's last point.

There's one issue that hasn't been mentioned at all.

When free fees were introduced, over half the expenditure was negated by the abolition of deeds of covenant. The deeds of covenant unquestionably benefitted richer people as the tax was claimed back at the higher rate. Therefore the introduction of free fees at the time unquestionably benefitted the middle range of incomes - the incomes that could not qualify for grants. It moved the goalposts to a more equitable system for all. Those who qualified for a grant still qualified for a grant so it didn't really affect them. By far the greater gain was for people who were not earning large salaries or on "millionaires row" (wherever that is), which Cork brought up as one of the main reasons free fees should not have been introduced.

Many people were (and still aware) of cases where, for example, a guy working in a bar had a son in college who did not qualify for a grant whereas the guy who owned the bar had a son who did. The introduction of free fees meant that the guy who paid more tax (and was therefore, barring tax fiddles) on a higher income was contributing more to the free fees system than the guy who was not earning as much.

Keep in mind I'm speaking purely of the current system where students are rated for income based on the income of their parents. Whether students should pay their way through a loan to be paid back to the State after achieving a certain level of income is perhaps another issue, though it should be obvious to even the myopic that such a system would still favour those who have well-off parents.

Revealing my socialist ideals, I don't think prospective students should be effectively precluded from further education merely because money at home is tight. Free fees (real free fees, not just a system of "free fees but you pay us a big whack of money anyway") offer an effective system of equal (or near-equal) opportunities to students who have parents who don't own a newspaper. The effective abandonment of free fees is betraying these prospective students. Tied into that is the level of the maintenence grant. This grant (which btw I was not entitled, based on my parents income so there's no personal gain) is still at a shocking level. Obviously it's intended as an aid, not as a catch-all "we pay for your beer too" scheme; however the current level of grant is such that of itself it doesn't even cover the cost of getting accommodation within two miles of UCC or UL. I'm sure the situation wrt getting accommodation in Dublin is even worse.

So with the rise in registration fees we have the current situation:

• For those who qualify for a full maintenance grant, the grant doesn't even cover somewhere to live.
• for those with middle-income parents (don't qualify for maintenance grant) they are effectively paying reduced college fees (not "free fees") - these students are disadvantaged from going to college almost as much as they were before the introduction of free fees
• those with wealthy parents who are willing to pay their way are the least disadvantaged

Anyone short-sighted enough to stand up and say the situation is just? It's neither fish not fowl. "Free fees" can be proclaimed by the government but they don't really exist.

Judging by the short list above, free fees may as well never have been introduced. Is the government reintroducing fees by stealth? Yes and no. They're re-introducing fees al right but they're not being too diplomatic about it.

Cork

Many people were (and still aware) of cases where, for example, a guy working in a bar had a son in college who did not qualify for a grant whereas the guy who owned the bar had a son who did.

This story must be in folklore by now. The revenue have moved on. They have increased powers of audit. "Cooking d books" is now not acceptable & the revenus has to try & ensure this.

those with wealthy parents who are willing to pay their way are the least disadvantaged

I agree.

For those who qualify for a full maintenance grant, the grant doesn't even cover somewhere to live.

The maintence grant needs to be doubled. I am finished college. I have no axe to grind. But I think the present system of "free fees" is an absolute gift to many "well to do" in our soceity.

A gift that they are only taking for granted.

What a bunch of suckers we are

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork


This story must be in folklore by now. The revenue have moved on. They have increased powers of audit. "Cooking d books" is now not acceptable & the revenus has to try & ensure this.

Doesn't mean they can or have. You might be surprised how capable some of our accountants are - I was amazed at what the Revenue failed to novice while working in IT in the largest accounting office in the mid-west. It's not enough to say "oh, the Revenue have more powers now so well, that's all right then" (though that's what our Finance Minister seems to think)

But I think the present system of "free fees" is an absolute gift to many "well to do" in our soceity.

As expected I'll just disagree on the basis that I think that's rubbish and I've said why I think that. I don't think you in particular have managed to back up the reasons why you think full economic fees should be introduced except by saying (partly by implication) "those who aren't on a grant can afford it and so should pay"

A gift that they are only taking for granted.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but what do you want: a thank you note?

Cork

You might be surprised how capable some of our accountants are

I think that people working in accountancy firms are not very well paid and I think any "messing" is not worth their while.

I was amazed at what the Revenue failed to novice while working in IT in the largest accounting office in the mid-west.

Why were the working in IT in the largest accounting office in the mid-west?

back up the reasons why you think full economic fees should be introduced

I feel that new schools need to be built where schools are in disrepair. Books need to be bought etc.

It a perfect world - I think it would not be an "either/or" situation - but unemployment is rising & resources are scarce.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I think that people working in accountancy firms are not very well paid and I think any "messing" is not worth their while.

This month, every single profit-sharing partner with PWC (worldwide) will make 100grand as a result of the sale of their consulting division to IBM. Still need convincing that all accountants are poor? Pay for accounting juniors may be pretty shoddy but it certainly doesn't remain like that. In any case, accountants' salaries are irrelevant.

Whether you personally think "messing" is worth their while or not doesn't affect the reality that it occurs on a reasonably common basis. I never did any accountancy training but I could hide money or disguise personal assets in prepared accounts fairly easily. Probably nothing compared with what someone who knew what they were doing could achieve. In any case, the legal position of auditors has always been that they are not to act as a bloodhound ferretting out wrongdoing in accounts - the relevant auditing FRS (last one was 11 I think) makes this fairly clear. Easy for a businessman to fool his accountant if he knows what he's doing.

Why were the working in IT in the largest accounting office in the mid-west?

If "the" means "they", they weren't. I was.



Getting off the initial topic I think (which isn't my intention). I'm not posting again until other people have had a go.

Cork

I am sorry for vering you off the point. But I contend that Teachers (grinds business) & hair dressers are hard to police as they are cash businesses.

When you have to account for VAT it is more difficult. Farmers get a small vate rebate - so hiding income is impossible. Business that is done in cash is easier to hide.

But overall - I believe that the vast majority of soletraders don't "mess" around.

The days of hiding income are gone. I applied once for a third level grant. I was a post grad student. I had pretty low income.

The amount of "red tape" - I had to go thru was crazy. I was on the PAYE system.

Easy for a businessman to fool his accountant if he knows what he's doing.

If its a cash business - Yes

How many teachers conduct businesses from their homes and don't pay rates?

Lawnkiller

there's no use in arguing over acounting tricks here. the fact remains that it still occurs.

but that has very little to do with the fact that fees are being re-introduced on the sly by the government.

just as a matter of interest, if this is to get the "well-to-do" section of the population(by well-to-do, i assume u mean "not rich, but not middle class") to "pay their way", its a fairly wide ranging measure that tars many non-members of this demographic with the same brush.

personally, i view the change to the grant system as a smoke screen to the people worst affected by this move. u need only read the department of education press release to see this. link here

Cork

there’s no use in arguing over accounting tricks here. The fact remains that it still occurs.

I am sorry about going on about accountancy but we are tease out to see if the grants system is equitable.

i view the change to the grant system as a smoke screen to the people worst affected by this move.

I think that if the government are reintroducing fees by the back door - it is sly. If they are bringing back fees in stages - people deserve to know.

The grants system needs reform. I believe the grants system is pretty fair. There is very little scope for “cooking the books” anymore.

When the ITs were getting ESF grants (non means tested) - Everybody was in the same boat. We did not have people looking down their noses on grant holders.

But resources are now scarce & We live in times of economic gloom & rising unemployment. We still have free fees – but I think that they are on the way out. But, I think that student leaders need to get reform in the grants system with the government. What assurances do students have that the registeration fees are not progreeively increased?

I keep on going on about resources. The horse racing industry in Ireland enjoys massive tax breaks and so do Artists – What % tax do our horse trainers pay or our music industry composers?

We need clarity on what the government is doing. I think that the battle on the “registration fee” hike is lost. Students have many expenses. I was in college 2 years ago doing a post grad diploma. Students seemed to be better off than when I was in college previously. This might have had to do with the economy.

But Students don’t have much time for part time jobs. There are always projects, assessments & exams. What’s the solution:
Free Fees
Improved grants system
Student loans

I don’t know about student loans. I am out of college 2 years. I am not earning a whole pile. Many friends of mine, not unlike myself are not working in IT at all. Free Fees is not 100% equitable. Reform of the grants system will probably take years.

We need a lot of carity here

Rabies

colleges/universities were only looking for an increase of 7% this year in college fees, earlier this summer they were approved with a 6% increase. as we all know this was changed a few weeks ago to 69%. this is 62% more than previously asked for.

the info is here

Cork

I think that we realised this from the start. Are the government trying to introduce fees again?

Is this a trend?

I think at least - People deserve to know.

Point of information: Are less people going to college these days because of getting jobs?

Lawnkiller

Originally posted by Cork
I think that we realised this from the start. Are the government trying to introduce fees again?

Point of information: Are less people going to college these days because of getting jobs?

The Govt. are trying to repair circumstances after their own work. This cannot be denied. It is also true to say that circumstances have changed around the world so its no use in blaming them entirely.

They are squeezing cash out of areas that don't normally yeild much cash (ie. students, education, health, dentists drama, etc.)

So yes, I'd imagine they are trying to set themselves up early in the term for a tough line of increases so people will hopefully forget about all this in a few years time and vote for them again.

Hopefully the public will do what they did to the Big Brother contestants and vote their a$$es out. (Don't have much faith in the public at the mo tho...)

Are ppl taking jobs instead of education. I think the current trend is illustrated in some other threads on this forum. from ppl i know the current idea is to leave school and work for say a year or two (could be more now with fee increases) to build up enough cash and experience to get through college or apprenticeship scheme. either way - most ppl won't settle for some of the more traditional roles that were seen as pensionable jobs for life and are getting better experience and qualtification to further themselves. However, the cost of living, going to college, and the general circumstances of life have changed significantly from 10 - 15 years ago. Cost are up in the last few year alone(i've noticed this since i got my first summer job - i'm nearly finished college now).

Hope this adds up to make some sense.