Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
3rd Level Fees: Rich families to pay
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by Meh
You're right, maybe the money spared will be spent on reforming the grants system or improving healthcare or putting more police on the streets or any of the other stuff that the government spends money on.
That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does.
These two points are flawed. Fair enough, at an individual level, College education is a luxury. Not having it may be a waste of your abilities, but at the end of the day you can get along without it, whereas you'd have trouble getting alng without Gardai to protect you or healthcare to keep to alive. But on a national level, a college educated workforce is just as critical. This entire argument in fact is one big maze of catch-22's and paradoxes. Without a college-educated workforce, the economy would stagnate and die. In order to get one, you risk damaging your economy by funding students. Someone from a poor background may end up with exactly the same income after college as someone from a wealthy background, similarly finished college. But the latter will be crippled with debt simply because he came from a rich background. Where's the equality there? However, without free fees, the guy from the poor background can't even get to college in the first place. That's all OT, but we must keep a very open mind on this issue. Like abortion, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, instead just a list of compromises that need to be made, on both sides.
Your second point is completely strange. By saving for a house, we mean that they are saving for a deposit to fill in the gap their mortgage won't cover. By owning a house we mean that they have a mortgage. So where's the difference?
If someone is saving €500 euro a month for a year to get a €6000 deposit, and another person is paying (a modest) €500 per month on their 25-year mortgage, how is the former any richer than the latter?
0 -
Meh,
Like government jets and Bertie's makeup? Pah.You're right, maybe the money spared will be spent on reforming the grants system or improving healthcare or putting more police on the streets or any of the other stuff that the government spends money on.
No it doesn't. It means that you're not poor - but there's a difference between "not poor" and "rich"...That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does.
Yup - for the first year it's in force. How long until someone "tweaks" or "adjusts" the thresholds? How long until we're back to where we were before free fees?But under your proposal, they're also paying for Tony O'Reilly's children to go to college.This argument is a red herring -- under the government proposal, ordinary workers would still be entitled to free third-level education. So at worst, average people are completley unaffected by the change.
Wow, so you lived on nothing for five years? No rent, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no gas, no books, no A4 pads, no pens, nothing?Let's say medicine in UCD costs €4,000 a year, and the course lasts 5 years. Let's also assume that you do no summer work or part-time whatsoever, and that you get no help from your wealthy parents. You will graduate €20k in debt.
Except that those figures are all wrong. You're talking about debt in the hundreds of thousands of euro if you want to be accurate about it.Now let's assume that a junior doctor earns just €10k a year more than they would if they didn't have a degree. They will have the debt cleared in two years. Seems a small price to pay for a good career.
I wish you could trust the government to do that. But you can'tThis isn't a reason to keep free fees. This is a reason to reform the grants system.
Best we can do is fight to keep the good things we have, and not let them ask for a step back to possibly get something at some indeterminate future date.
bonkey,
You're forgetting that those paying student loans also pay taxes. And usually pay more tax than those that didn't go to college.As opposed to paying for all loans. You do the math. Work out which costs the taxpayer more?
It was the emigration problem that was causing the majority of the defaults actually. And the neat thing about Ireland is that we have a long tradition of emigration and now that the economic boom is over, that'll be making a comeback...And there are steps you can take against defaulters to regain some/all costs. The only way that they should be able to get away with it is be emigrating permanently or remaining permanently unemployed.
Buying a house is a crippling financial burden - or do you have 250,000 euro hanging about in your pocket?By that standard, buying a house is a "crippling financial burden". Strangely, I dont see many people claiming that the government should pay for everyone to own their house to spare them the burden.
And many people are most unhappy at how the prices were allowed to spiral by the government. So that analogy doesn't really hold.
Your mate doesn't get to be a doctor for free. First, he has to study damn hard, and second he pays a lot more tax later on. Consider it as an investment by the state. You pay taxes to pay for a doctor who'll pay more taxes himself over the course of his career than you paid in in the first place.I see no difference in expecting the government to pay for one investment over another. If your mate gets to be a doctor for free, why shouldnt I get a house for free? We're talking same ballpark figures here.
Of course, you still have to worry about emigration...
I graduated from TCD six years ago. I teach labs there now while working on my PhD (which does not have free fees).As a matter of interest, would I be correct in guessing that you have not yet attended university, and that may have some small impact on your position?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
And of course, the government wastes 100% of its income on government jets and makeup for politicians. It spends nothing whatsoever on hospitals and schools.Originally posted by Sparks
Like government jets and Bertie's makeup? Pah.
I'm sorry, but if you have €500 a month of surplus income on top of food, rent and transport to save towards a house, then you are rich by any definition of the term. I suppose you're using the usual middle-class definition of rich as "my income + 50%"?No it doesn't. It means that you're not poor - but there's a difference between "not poor" and "rich"...
Slippery slope.Yup - for the first year it's in force. How long until someone "tweaks" or "adjusts" the thresholds? How long until we're back to where we were before free fees?The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
You would have to pay for that stuff free fees or not, so it makes no difference to my analysis.Wow, so you lived on nothing for five years? No rent, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no gas, no books, no A4 pads, no pens, nothing?
Hundreds of thousands in debt? Utter rubbish. I'd like to see you back this up.Except that those figures are all wrong. You're talking about debt in the hundreds of thousands of euro if you want to be accurate about it.
So you'd rather waste your time campaigning to save he wasteful, inefficient and unjust free fees system, rather than trying to reform the grants system and actually improve social justice in this country?I wish you could trust the government to do that. But you can't Best we can do is fight to keep the good things we have, and not let them ask for a step back to possibly get something at some indeterminate future date.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Meh,
No, but when it will buy a new government jet it doesn't need while letting schools be health hazards because "there's not enough money for the capital grant system", it doesn't say much for their prioritisation in funding.And of course, the government wastes 100% of its income on government jets and makeup for politicians. It spends nothing whatsoever on hospitals and schools
No, you're not. When working hard and budgeting allows you to save that much a month, you're still not rich. You're not necessarily even well-off. There's a distinct difference between the O'Reilly's of this country (now that's rich) and those who have worked hard, graduated from college and been lucky enough to get a job.I'm sorry, but if you have €500 a month of surplus income on top of food, rent and transport to save towards a house, then you are rich by any definition of the term.
No. I'm using the definition that says that if your money does the work, you're rich.I suppose you're using the usual middle-class definition of rich as "my income + 50%"
The slippery slope is only a fallacy when there's no reason to assume that y follows from x. But in this country, there's a lot of precedence to show that if y benefits a politicaly empowered minority, it tends to happen quickly.Slippery slope
Yes it does, because it's not certain that you'd have to pay for that stuff. You could be on a grant.You would have to pay for that stuff free fees or not, so it makes no difference to my analysis
Fees, rent, food, normal bills, books, equipment.Hundreds of thousands in debt? Utter rubbish. I'd like to see you back this up
Care to do a costing for five years of college plus more years of specialist training?
Nope, I'd rather campaign for free fees AND a reformed grants scheme. We have free fees now, why give it up to reform the grants scheme? And where's the proposal from the government to reform the grants scheme while reforming the fees scheme?So you'd rather waste your time campaigning to save he wasteful, inefficient and unjust free fees system, rather than trying to reform the grants system and actually improve social justice in this country?
bonkey,
That's mainly because of the lack of desirability of living on the street or in your parent's house...It seems to be a crippling burden that people are falling over themselves to assume.
Not sleeping in the rain? Not living in your parents house with your wife?If people are that eager to assume such a crippling burden, don't you think that its because they see an advantage in doing so?
And where's he going to get the money to pay for it up front?Fine - then make him pay for it up front and give him tax breaks in return as payback.
Student loan?
Back to the problem of emigration and defaulting...
And pragmatically, we get more money through the taxation method.
And what 17-year old is going to take that risk without a rich daddy? And if the numbers fall off, we get less doctors, and frankly I don't think that's a good idea.That way, if he skips the country, fails his course, ends up unemployed, or anything, the taxpayer is not footing the bill.
Well, lets see. You pay taxes now. In return, you get a trained doctor, and since he pays more taxes, the tax burden is spread more thinly and you get a reduction in taxes a few years down the road.Ultimately, if you can argue that the state can consider it an investment, then it must also be true that it is an investment for whoever pays the bill.
Of course, that assumes a competent honest government
The state still loses with student loans!The state loses if they pay for someone who emigrates. If the doc pays for their own education, then they dont lose out by emigrating.
Actually, at present that's where we are. There are sufficent facilities to cover the needs for the next 20 years, according to the demographics. But to assume the government is funding this is to ignore reality - in fact the funding to 3rd level has been slashed and next year's courses are going to show that in unpleasant clarity. The internal changes in TCD alone are giving most of us that demonstrate or teach there serious cause for concern.I dont know what the figures are now, but when I finished secondary there was a shortage of university spaces. The aim was to bring our third-level education to the point where if someone wanted a place, they could have one. That is where the government's investment should be - making the facilities available - not paying for someone to use or abuse them as they see fit.
That's where the budget went this year, but the fact is that not enough is being put into funding for education and the whole system is going to have a fit because of it. Introducing fees again is little more than a cop-out by the government to avoid dumping more funding into it.I'd even say that we should be spending money on improving our primary and secondary education rather than funding attendance to university.
Poor analysis. Free fees didn't cause the problem in the education system. Poor examination standards did. And money won't solve that problem - but cutting the funding isn't going to help the situation eitherNot so long ago, Ireland was generally ranked second in the world for its educational system. Not there now. But lets not fix that...lets pay the doctor cause he shouldnt have to invest in his own future...we should.
Not for me thanks. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement