3rd Level Fees: Rich families to pay

PH01

Third-level fees will be introduced for students from "very wealthy" families next October, although the Cabinet will not decide on the income thresholds to be applied until the end of May.

This seems fair?

Annasopra

Well I'd prefer to wait and see what the government proposals are before saying this is fair or not, however, what happens in a scenario like this:

An 18 year old guy whose parents earn 250,000 decide that he can fend for himself, that he is financially independent, so he moves out of home and becomes "financially independent" . Is he able to claim free fees?

Spock

I think its unfair that because you have skills and earn a lot of money you have to pay fees, only the poor seem to have equel rights, the wealthy get fecked

Lenny

Everyone that lives in your household Will be taken into account When they're checking the familys finical status, so your brother and sisters and parents earning Will all be added up

Cork

No, I think you have to be over 23.

I think the government should clarify what it intends to do.

I am in favour of reforming the grants system and abolishing free fees.

By putting a ceiling on fees - will force all to send in their income.

Patipiciapation in third level needs encouragement. Free Fees had not improved participation one bit.

MAC_E

Very true, how on earth would they tell the difference or prove that the new student isnt getting support from his family

shotamoose

For reference, there was a pretty good discussion on this topic some time ago here .

solice

Patipiciapation in third level needs encouragement. Free Fees had not improved participation one bit.

i dont agree, for instance, five years ago there was 10,000 studeents in UCC. today there are 14,000. free fees must have had something to do with that.

neway i am in favour of bringing back fees, but only if it is means tested. we can all say that "oh yeah thats discrimination of the wealthy in society. they worked hard to become doctors and lawyers, why should they have to pa more".
they should have to pay more cos they are capable of paying more.

bring in a fair and just method of means testing a family and i will for the first time stand up and say to bertie ahern, "well done".

Everyone that lives in your household Will be taken into account When they're checking the familys finical status, so your brother and sisters and parents earning Will all be added up

but i do not like that one.

Mighty_Mouse

no-body can defend millionaires getting free education !!!

But thats not where the argument comes from .

My problem here is that it would be the thin end of the wedge. A level that would be brought lower and lower every budget year.

Also the level that this earnings test will be at is dodgy out. !!

Reason: cause it will have to be low enough to recoup enough money so as to absorp administration cost and provide enough cash to resolve some of the outstanding educational problems.

ADMINISTRATION COSTS - i nearly had a heart-attack!! Civil service admin costs - forget about its fees for everybody!!!!!!!!


So i'll swallow the fact that the rich are getting free fees so as not to jepordise the education of the lower classes-just about middle class bracket!!

solice

thats a good point, the threshold would have to be quite low so as to cover costs and make a profit.
but this govt has squandered any profit they have ever made so i dont think they will worry too much about that.

Lemming

just one thing that just struck me.

The rich already pay more (in the form of a higher tax-band). Granted, so do a lotof other people.

But what is "rich"? To someone on the dole for the last 20 years I'd be filthy rich, when in fact I'm middle-class. To someone who's a proper millionaire, I'd be earning pittance.

By the time someone's been out working for a couple of years after graduating, they'd have paid off the bulk of what it cost them to go through college in the first place.

Incidentally, iirc, UCD has a full-time population of 17000 (ish), with another n,000 part-timers.

solice

if it was means tested properly it would be fair.
for example if a family earns
<100,000 pay full fees
<85,000 pay a certain percentage more.
etc


this is a very simple idea and of course more things would have to be taken into consideration, such as family members with disabilities etc.

Lemming

Originally posted by solice
if it was means tested properly it would be fair.
for example if a family earns
<100,000 pay full fees
<85,000 pay a certain percentage more.
etc

Fair enough - taking my parents incomes & my own (if applicable at the time) into account.

taking siblings incomes into account? My siblings most CERTAINLY did not contribute to my colleg eeducation in any way financially, so why should they be included in the means test I ask?

If they want to be fair, then they should also look at if there are multiple siblings from a household attending/applying to attend 3rd level education.

Telling a family with, say, both parents earning a combined income over the 100,000 mark with twins that they must pay full fees TWICE when the benchmark is used per-individual is both unfair and extremely short-sighted.

"Who do you love more mammy & daddy? Me or my twin?"

You get my point?

ANd besides, there's already a means test for grants. Making some people pay for fees isn't going to do squat anyway. The people relying on grants etc aren't going to see any of the recouped monies anyway.

Sparks

Bringing fees back is the thin end of the wedge, and frankly only harms our economy in the long run. What's our main national resource? It sure as doughnuts isn't oil - it's an educated labour force. Which means that we can't bring back fees - instead we have to expand the grants program so that expenses other than fees can be covered by the state for those that can't afford to cover them but have the ability.

And for what it's worth, if fees hadn't been abolished, my siblings would have had to wait two years until I had graduated before they could have started college. The lovely thing about means testing is that it picks you out as not being eligible for grants because you can afford to send one kid to college - but if you need to send two, well, you can afford to send one, so no grant for you!

And why is it that the people making the decision (which most affects the least wealthy) are never going to be affected by that decision?

seamus

Once again, the Government has fscked up and decided to implement something completely unrelated to the problems they are trying to solve.

I don't live at home. I live on what I earn in work, and the rare times that my Dad throws €200 my way. Is it fair for the Government to sweep in and say, "right, well, even though you're financially separated from your parents, we're going to use their income as a means test"? Uh, no. None of my siblings live at home either. Their combined incomes would be well over the €100,000 mark. But they all have their own lives, and mortgages to pay etc etc. WTF has their income got to do with anything?

I honestly think the Government are trying to encourage students to go overseas. If Hibernian have their way, no student will be able to get a bike. Very few students can afford to get cars. Infrastructure has gone to ****. And if they re-introduce fees, thousands will either not go to college, or have to leave college early - what is going to happen in October to everyone halfway through their courses? I have one year left., and certainly can't afford to pay fees. The prospect of having to go back under my parent's wing is not an appealing one.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Lemming
The rich already pay more (in the form of a higher tax-band). Granted, so do a lotof other people.

Rich people tend to know how to not pay more tax then they need to and can afford to pay people to do this for them.

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobbes
Rich people tend to know how to not pay more tax then they need to and can afford to pay people to do this for them.

That's a very sweeping statement there Hobbes. I could say that long-term dole applicants "tend to know how to" milk the system for every single penny they can get their hands on.

That bit of OT commentary doesn't deal with the fact that they still pay higher taxes anyway, since they're in the 48% (??) tax band compared to the 20-something tax-band (please correct the % figures as I'm sure I'm wrong). Since they've more money in the bank, they'll be paying more on interest accrued too, etc. etc.

As I've said earlier too, I'm out of college and have been working for 2 years this coming august for the company I was hired by shortly after leaving. I'm pretty sure that i've paid back a significant amount of what it cost to send me through college by now. So it all evens out.

The only reason we're in this mess right now is because the current government are incompetent fvckwits at running the country in general and couldn't manage a child's piggy-bank.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Bringing fees back is the thin end of the wedge, and frankly only harms our economy in the long run. What's our main national resource? It sure as doughnuts isn't oil - it's an educated labour force. Which means that we can't bring back fees - instead we have to expand the grants program

What's stopping us from doing both? Why can't we reintroduce fees for the rich and use the money to improve the grants program for the poor?

And for what it's worth, if fees hadn't been abolished, my siblings would have had to wait two years until I had graduated before they could have started college.

No they wouldn't. They would have been able to get student loans which they wouldn't have had to pay back until they started earning above a certain threshold.

And why is it that the people making the decision (which most affects the least wealthy) are never going to be affected by that decision?

Read the title of this thread: "Rich families to pay".

GuanYin

The easiest way to do it is to abolish fees and bring in a grant system based on Family socio-economic background


Working something like this:

Combined Earnings of Guardians
<50,000 = Full Fees
50-85,000 = 75% Fees
85-100,000 = 50% Fees
100,000-125,000=25% Fees
>125,000 = No Fees

And the maintenance grant should be reviewed in a similar way.

This scale should be biased with the number of children attending college in some way too.

Lemming

Originally posted by Meh
What's stopping us from doing both? Why can't we reintroduce fees for the rich and use the money to improve the grants program for the poor?

Because the poor would never see the money. Charlie McGreedy's horsey friends would.

No they wouldn't. They would have been able to get student loans which they wouldn't have had to pay back until they started earning above a certain threshold.

Ask 18 year old would they like to go through college and get stuck paying back a massive loan for 10 years?

Is that more or less of a dissincentive to attend college? You tell me?

Read the title of this thread: "Rich families to pay".

Doesn't answer the origianl question about stuff like this being passed by people who will not be affected by it. I'll lay odds down that every politician involved in this has kids that have been through college already on the free-education waggon and thus won't be affected by this.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Lemming
That's a very sweeping statement there Hobbes. I could say that long-term dole applicants "tend to know how to" milk the system for every single penny they can get their hands on.

The difference is that the rich person can do it legally and there's a big difference between being poor and rich.

I'm not saying all Rich people do, but most rich people didn't get rich by being stupid.

(Note: I'm not rich but I am in the 48% tax band) When I was in the US I had a company do my taxes for the three years and I was amazed at how much they were able to get away with not paying. Certainly not stuff any average Joe would know without spending time and resources to find out. I would guess that same sort of crap goes on here.

Since they've more money in the bank, they'll be paying more on interest accrued too, etc. etc.

Misread this first and thought you meant the poor people. Like I said most rich people didn't get rich by being stupid and wouldn't put the majority of their money in a location where they would end up p1ssing most of it away to the revenue commisioners.

Rich people also tend not to have to worry about things like "Will I be able to eat this week and pay the bills?", let alone can they go through college.

I might be a bit upset if a rich person wasn't allowed say go watch a movie (because they weren't poor) and visa versa, but not in the case of education where it can help people change their social standing and better themselves and others.

Sparks

That's a very sweeping statement there Hobbes.

But justified - look at the ansbacher accounts debacle.

What's stopping us from doing both? Why can't we reintroduce fees for the rich and use the money to improve the grants program for the poor?

Because you didn't say who's rich and who's poor! Hell, compared to what my family was when I was born, we're stinking filthy rich now - but we still couldn't afford to send both me and my sister to college at the same time. And so long as that fuzziness exists, it'll get exploited by corrupt politicians trying to cut money from one area of the budget to allow for tax cuts in an election year or whatever.

No they wouldn't. They would have been able to get student loans which they wouldn't have had to pay back until they started earning above a certain threshold.

No, they wouldn't have. What, you think we just gave up on the idea without looking into it?
Besides which, Austrailian and American experience has shown student loan schemes don't work well at all.

Read the title of this thread: "Rich families to pay".

And they won't be affected. The people making the decision have so much financial security that it's not going to be a concern for them if they do have to pay, and odds are they'll find a loophole anyway.

po0k

I don't know about the rest of you but this is my situation regarding college:
I'm just gone 19.
My mother is a primary school teacher.
I'm sitting my 2nd year exams atm.
My family home is 10 miles from the college, I moved into town last september because I was finding it hard to get lifts in int he morning (relied on hitching for a year, in some terrible weather, was late for a good few lectures). There is no proper bus service from where I live.

because the distance is under 15miles we can't get a grant.
because my mother's income is slightly above the threshold we can't get a grant.
because her income is from the government there is no way she can *hide* income for a year to get the grant, unlike alot of self-employed / business owners I know who have adjusted their income reports for the year their child enters college to get the grant, and report it as normal the following year, by which time they have the grant and cn keep it, even though they're now reporting higher income. These people drive BMWs.
I've been working since I started college, and my course work has suffered a bit as a result.
I have no problem paying taxes, and I will pay my dues, but I bloody well expect a return from them.
That is one of the major problems with this country.
Plenty of taxation and fuck all being done with it to improve services and quality of life for people. A poignient example of this being that sorry excuse for a toothpick in O'Connel St.
Now I think we'll be leveled with a bill of ~E1500 in september for me to continue my studies. We will pay it. because it'll be introduced over the summer when the student bodies are at their weakest.
It's this sort of "shly-boots" underhand tactics which infuriate me with the current regime. I voted in the last referendum and I will continue to exercise my right to vote, and I will not be voting FF.

I've left gaps and hole sin my rant, but I could care less.

Lemming

Ok, my deep-seated fears over this issue are as follows:

I have zero, zilch, zip, nyeada, none, absolutely nothing, !, confidence in this government on such a serious and potentially life-altering (for applicants/students) issue as this to NOT make an absolute boll0cks of what they're proposing.

I can see a lot of "innocent bystanders" , so to speak, being caught in the cross-fire. If I recall, college applications in the UK are already in steady decline since they re-introduced fees*

Secondly, a tiered education system like this is not an equal and fair system & I can see it leading to some ugly practices. I mean, somebody is penalised because their parents managed to be successful in whatever it was they were doing. I'd rather EVERYONE was able to avail of what I was able to avail of, rather than being selective about it.

Thirdly, I can see fee's making absolutely no difference to the current situation. The poor won't see any tangible benefit

Forthly, there are other reasons why many people from "poorer" backgrounds don't go to college besides the initial cost. There are social factors to take into account that this, quite frankly, wont affect at all.





* - this is from memory from the Beeb news a while back and this is possibly not 100% accurate

hussey

Originally posted by SyxPak


because the distance is under 15miles we can't get a grant.

I got a grant and I live around 5mls from my college

are you sure this is correct

seamus

I think the main issue here is equality. This is not a socialist state (thank God), it's a democratic one, i.e. everyone is equal in the eyes of the state, and you do the best with the hand you've been dealt. Obviously, we're not the extreme of this, we do have social welfare, and grant programmes, but when you start pushing this even harder (i.e. Taking extra, non-Tax money from the wealthy to fund the poor) is where you start being discriminatory.

In theory, I've no problem with sliding scales for fees, but it's mainly the way they're looking at implementing it that I have a problem with. If someone can show that they're not dependant on their parents for support, and they can't afford fees, then they should be entitled to free fees. Of course, many wealthy families will find loopholes in this, but at least it's a catch-all net, as opposed to the proposed scheme, which will exclude those who's parents won't pay, or who's parents have too many dependants/debts etc to pay.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sparks
But justified - look at the ansbacher accounts debacle.

Indeed. Also look at the amount of people stung claiming the dole and moonlighting whenever the government mounts such check-points up outside council estates from time to time.

Corruption isn't the preserve of the rich.

No, they wouldn't have. What, you think we just gave up on the idea without looking into it?
Besides which, Austrailian and American experience has shown student loan schemes don't work well at all.

You're also forgetting the UK in that now. But indeed, I have a story about a canadian guy for you.

A friend of mine was int he college of surgeons, along with this canadian guy. He wouldn't have been making money for himself until he turned 34 because of the level of debt he would amass by the time he graduated. And that was in first year in college!

Sparks

A friend of mine was int he college of surgeons, along with this canadian guy. He wouldn't have been making money for himself until he turned 34 because of the level of debt he would amass by the time he graduated. And that was in first year in college!

Anecdotal, but that is one of the two main problems with student loans - the financial burden they place on graduates at a point where they're trying to start their lives, buy houses, get married, have kids and so on. The other problem is related - a large percentage of people receiving those loans default on them in the US and Australia. Which means that the State loses money.

Cork

There was a survey quoted on this mornings morning Ireland that showed Arts graduates are paid 5% less than non graduates.

I know people with good degrees working in shops, building sites, hotels etc.

But the grants system needs big reform. Free Fees was a measure that benefited the rich. Children of the rich have benefited from free fees.

I know conenants were abandoned. What was needed at the time was reform of the grants system.

I don;t think Bertie will introduce universal fees. They would be war in the middle classes.

Capitation & Registeration fees will be increased yet again. This will be more palatable to our middle classes.

But - as a consequence we will not get grant reform or higher participation in third level education by certain groups in our society.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Anecdotal, but that is one of the two main problems with student loans - the financial burden they place on graduates at a point where they're trying to start their lives, buy houses, get married, have kids and so on.

You talk as if the money for "free" fees comes from nowhere. What about the financial burden imposed on ordinary workers who didn't go to college, don't get the financial benefits of a university education and still have to pay for it through their taxes? "Free fees" is like some twisted version of Robin Hood -- it takes from the poor and gives to the rich (and if you're saving to buying a house, you are rich).

The other problem is related - a large percentage of people receiving those loans default on them in the US and Australia.

University fees in the US are up to $40k a year. Even if fees were reintroduced in this country, they would be nothing like as high as this. I saw a figure of 2-3k a year mentioned (no link, sorry).

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
A friend of mine was int he college of surgeons, along with this canadian guy. He wouldn't have been making money for himself until he turned 34 because of the level of debt he would amass by the time he graduated. And that was in first year in college!

Yes, it would be a much better idea if someone else paid for him to get his education, so that then he could start earning money much sooner.

Then, when he wants to buy a house, he should get someone else to pay for that too, because - like his qualification - its going to prevent him "making money for himself" until it is paid for.

Funny...I coulda sworn that getting a degree and deciding to become a surgeon was a freely made personal choice. Guess not.

jc