3rd Level Fees: Rich families to pay

Sparks

Trips,

when free fees came in everyone said great and did IT. And now because of greedy choices (i.e., I want to be *earning* a hundred grand at 24 and other madness) unemployment and immigration are going to prob go up.
So do you think people all made good choices when it was free for all?

No I don't, and I've said so before. But that's a problem in secondary level education and third level entrance requirements and course structure - and those problems will not be solved through the removal of free fees.

Meh,

It's perfectly possible to buy a serviceable used car for €3,000.

Where from? (He says, having seen that the lowest price in the latest "Car Buyers Guide" is ~4500 for a car with over 100,000 miles on the odometer).

And if you can't afford that, there's public transport.

I'm going to try *very* hard not to fall over laughing Meh. You and me may have walked to school each morning, but that was over twenty years ago and nowhere near Dublin. If I had kids, I would not be allowing them to walk a mile or more to school unattended - and given the reality of working in Dublin and living in a dormitory town, cars are about the only viable solution That's not to say that there should be an alternative - but until security on public transport is sufficent that you don't have to worry about your child being abducted or beaten, I don't count it as a viable alternative.

If you can't afford to pay a €250k mortgage (I know I can't), you can rent accommodation for less than a €250k mortgage would cost. If you can't afford the rent, the Health Board will give you Rent Allowance money. You're not "entitled" to own a new car or buy your own house or go to college at the taxpayer's expense. All these things are privileges, not rights.

Actually, you have a legal right to education. And in our society, without an equal chance to go to college, that right is comprimised because a LC is not the equivalent of a BA.

Further, should free fees be cancelled, do you really think your tax levels will fall?

And to quote a letter from today's Irish Times:

Anyone who thinks Noel Dempsey or the rest of the Government cares about third-level access for the disadvantaged is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

The only implemented change I have seen recently in this regard has been the 25 per cent cut in the Back To Education allowance for the long-term unemployed, lone parents, etc. Have I missed something?

bonkey

Originally posted by Captain Trips
So how about this:
Bring back fees, but increase the amount of scholarships by a very large proportion. 2nd level is free generally. So reward those who do best in the LC - who committed to studying harder. Yes I know someone will bring up grind schools; make them tax deductable.

No offense, but that type of elitist structuring is - in my opinion - the worst possible solution imaginable.

Take my case.

My dad earned a reasonable salary working for a semi-state. My mum didnt work. My dad could afford to put his four kids through university - two of us in the days when there were fees, and the fourth not yet there, so that probably means he's paying fees for her too.

Now - he's budgeted for this for each of us since the day we were each born. It has meant smaller cars, bought less often. It has meant fewer foreign holidays, and other sacrifices over the past 30 years, but thats what he reckoned it took, and he put his luxury aside for half his life to ensure that we got to go through university irrespective of whether or not we had to pay fees etc. He treats the fees being dropped for some years as "free money" which he can touch the day my youngest sibling graduates.

I'm a lazy sod. In my last term of first year in UL, I attended approximately 1/3 of my lectures. I did SFA study. I was the archetypal poor student. I wasnt much better in the first two terms, but final term of first year was a real doozy. Anyway...as it happens, I'm also rather good at what I do. As a result I walked out of first year with the lowest attendance record and the highest average grades in my class - and one of the highest averages of my entire year in university (dunno if UL is still the same, but I finished first year with a QCA of 3.84).

According to your system, I should be rewarded with less fees the following year. Why? My dad had the money put aside, and I sure as hell didnt work a fraction as hard as many of my class - many of whom just about scraped by into second year. And yet I would be the one rewarded for my "good work"...purely because I happen to have a natural aptitude for what I was studying.

Much and all though such a system would benefit me personally, I would be the first to oppose it, as it is heading down the road of "education is for the smart". Can you imagine, for example, if the government adopted the same system in secondary or primary school?

"I'm sorry sir, but your son doesnt get to start secondary school unless you fork over the readies. He's too stupid to be worth government funding".

No thanks.

If you can suggest a way to link the reward to the effort rather than the ability, then sure - I'd be all for it - but otherwise no way.

jc

donutheadhomer

Any parent who can afford Private Schools and Grinds for their kids can also afford 3rd Level fees

donutheadhomer

k

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Where from? (He says, having seen that the lowest price in the latest "Car Buyers Guide" is ~4500 for a car with over 100,000 miles on the odometer).

http://search.autotrader.ie/cgi-bin/search?locale=eir.CARS.1&country=IE&orderby=neg_price&make_id_EQI=0&model_EQS=0&specified_price_GT=500&specified_price_LT=3000&currency=EUR&SUBMIT=Search

You have searched for: Price €500 - €3,000, Sort by Price High-Low

874 cars from a total of 12,607.

I'm going to try *very* hard not to fall over laughing Meh. You and me may have walked to school each morning, but that was over twenty years ago and nowhere near Dublin. If I had kids, I would not be allowing them to walk a mile or more to school unattended

Who said anything about unattended?

Actually, you have a legal right to education.

A legal right to education is not the same thing as a legal right to free education.

Sparks

Meh,
First, thanks for the link (looking to get a new car as the current one isn't going to make it past the NCT...)

Who said anything about unattended?

Who said that we have the time to walk to our kids schools and get to work for 0900? Most schools do not have any facility to look after kids arriving at 0700 which is why you'd have to be dropping them off while driving to dublin from a dormitary town, and close to the time were you using the DART.

A legal right to education is not the same thing as a legal right to free education.

No, but the legal right is to an equal standard of education, as shown by the recent case won against the government regarding the education of autistic children. There is an argument that reintroducing fees runs counter to that right.

But we're arguing here about something off the central topic.

What do we want from our education system? I'm arguing that the education system produces our greatest natural resource - an educated skilled workforce. That education system, however, is a complex one, and full of flaws. Primary and Secondary education are in need of better pay for teachers to attract the best teachers we can get. Higher standards need to be set to counter the inflow of graduates applying to be teachers to ensure we get the best of the applicants. More money for capital spending is required to upgrade a large number of primary and secondary schools to a minimum standard (ie. no rats, no mildew, no damp, etc...). In third level, the HEA needs to step up it's auditing program to an annual one, instead of a five-year one. College courses need to be reviewed comprehensively on an annual basis, and many are in dire need of updating. College examination practises and standards have to be updated, and something that should be seriously considered is either extending the length of the courses for some subjects or switching to a system similar to that of German colleges. And in some colleges, like TCD, the weight of the internal college beaurocracy is an enormous problem. Further education after graduation is also in dire need of review, especially as for the next decade or so, it's going to be of equal or greater size than undergraduate courses. TCD isn't even accepting non-graduates for their further education courses - that's the kind of thing that has to be changed.

Given all of that, I have to sincerely doubt that reintroducing fees is going to have anything but a negative effect. If Dempsey is serious about access to third level, he has to restructure the grants system - not make it harder for middle income families (who, like it or not, make up the majority of those sending kids to college) to send kids to college.

The problems with the education system are too complex, and the system too important, to allow a kneejerk reaction to be taken.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Who said that we have the time to walk to our kids schools and get to work for 0900?

You don't have time to walk or accompany them on the bus, but you've got time to sit in a traffic jam and drive them? Please.

No, but the legal right is to an equal standard of education, as shown by the recent case won against the government regarding the education of autistic children.

And that case is completely irrelevant to free fees. If the government was proposing to reintroduce fees for autistic students only, that wouldn't be allowed, sure. But as far as I've heard, they've no intention of doing that.

There is an argument that reintroducing fees runs counter to that right.

As long as the rules on who has to pay and who doesn't get applied to everyone equally and without arbitrary discrimination, there is no problem.

The problems with the education system are too complex, and the system too important, to allow a kneejerk reaction to be taken.

I agree, but free fees is precisely that kneejerk reaction. It was introduced as a vote-buying measure by the Labour government a few years back, against the advice of their own civil servants.

Sand

Can you imagine, for example, if the government adopted the same system in secondary or primary school?

Not really the issue though - I think its generally accepted that primary and secondary school teaches the basic skills of reading, writing addition and exsposes the kid to a variety of subjects so that he or she can decide on what they might like to pursue and to determine if theyve got the ability to pursue it.

it is heading down the road of "education is for the smart".

Education *is* for the smart Id reckon, or at least for those with an ability for what their pursuing.

The government has to get a return for its investment - its the tax payers money, politicians cant throw it around so theyre popular. If youre not gifted enough/hard working enough to pass your exams easily enough then why should the government pay for you? Whilst you may have been naturally gifted at what you pursued surely thats a good thing? Others had to work harder to get similar results but either way the government gets a group of qualified people who are either naturals or motivated enough to learn.

Thats better than a bunch who scraped in *barely*, passed their exams *barely*, and come out the other side with a qualification to their name they did *just enough* to get, which they wouldnt have valued enough to pursue if it wasnt free.

If you can suggest a way to link the reward to the effort rather than the ability, then sure - I'd be all for it - but otherwise no way.

The points system generally rewards effort - its after all just a short term memory test where you spit out what youve memorised, and complete questions extremely similar to questions youve been doing for the past 6 months. Its so broad ranging that you cant be naturally gifted at everything. If you cant get a good points total youve just not put in the effort or your just not suited for the sort of challenges a 3rd level course will present. Either way why should the government fund you?

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Sparks
Given all of that, I have to sincerely doubt that reintroducing fees is going to have anything but a negative effect. If Dempsey is serious about access to third level, he has to restructure the grants system - not make it harder for middle income families (who, like it or not, make up the majority of those sending kids to college) to send kids to college.

Yeah but who pays? Free fees for everyone? yeah that will work like it does now. Are we benefiting so greatly from these free fees? In what way are things *better* now, compared to 10-15 years ago. Are we so rich and arrogant to give everyone not just primary, secondary but also college education? Like I said, then free post-grad courses? WTF does the money come from? Spend 12 years in college? Who is going to support these people? You, me? It's a nice idea if money was magic and you didn't need to pay for accomodation, salaries, etc., . But this isn't Star Trek's Federation and money still exists. And you have to pay people and at the moment our governement cannot afford it.

Bonkey's story was excellent: exactly the sort of cop on from his dad that I think people these days miss. Everyone has to make some sacrifice and he chose to sacrifice say a flash car, etc., over the years and so on.

Where and when did the mentality of that all things should be available now and for free? What sort of magical thinking is this? You want to say have your future kids go to college - but want to make no sacrifice for it. Instead you want buy a stupidly expensive Dublin house, a new BMW and not accept that you can't have everything. Not willing to say or decide what you think is best. It's arrogant and selfish to then presume that others - some weird group of immposibly rich people who earn the vast amount of 100,000 a year between them - should pay for you to go and keep studying in college - and then next in 10 years time - to pay for the equivalent to go on to free post-grad education. Still no increase in workforce numbers, etc., . Still no give. Just greed and selfish behaviour that someone else should work for you. Am I so wrong in the above? And it's not directed at anyone here in particular.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
No, but the legal right is to an equal standard of education, as shown by the recent case won against the government regarding the education of autistic children. There is an argument that reintroducing fees runs counter to that right.

Except that the initial case regarding autism was where someone wanted an education which (s)he had been denied in their youth, wasnt it?

IIRC, the findings were that yes - the government had failed in its duty to supply an equal standard of education, and no - the person was not entitled to an education today, because the government's responsibility only covered you to the age of 16.

How re-introducing fees could run counter to this "legal right" is beyond me....except for the rare prodigy who attends university from a young age. There, I believe the government also has a get-out clause, because its legal responsibility is also only limited to the level of the Leaving Cert.

So, when you talk about "legal rights" to an education, you have absolutely nothing relevant to university. What you are - in effect - arguing is that we should have such a right.

jc

DeVore

Sand.... did you miss the part where I said I'd pay 1% more tax to support free 3rd level?

If someone stays in college as a post grad, its quite possible they will end up creating another Trintech (formed from a campus company)... that generates 1000 Irish jobs and a TON of cash into the country in taxes etc.

why do you think Harvard is dwarfed by MIT?
The US understands that those who control the new ideas, control the cash.

We need to be in that race or go back to farming.

DeV.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
You don't have time to walk or accompany them on the bus, but you've got time to sit in a traffic jam and drive them? Please.

Departing greystones at 0700, you arrive in dublin (TCD to be exact) a little after 0830. It's nonlinear though - leave at 0710 and you get there around 0900 or later.
I'm not saying that you don't have time to do it - I'm saying that unless your school can cater to students showing up at 0650, that you have a problem...

And that case is completely irrelevant to free fees.

Actually it wasn't, as I tried to point out.

I agree, but free fees is precisely that kneejerk reaction. It was introduced as a vote-buying measure by the Labour government a few years back, against the advice of their own civil servants.

Yes, but it has had the surprise effect of actually working. It's damn rare that this government does anything right - and when they do, they tend to try to revoke it, as with the FOI act.
To be honest, I can't see bertie trying this one, since it would generate a lot of middle-class resentment and that's FF's main voter demographic really.


Trips,

Yeah but who pays? Free fees for everyone? yeah that will work like it does now. Are we benefiting so greatly from these free fees?

I would argue yes.

In what way are things *better* now, compared to 10-15 years ago.

Middle-income families can send their kids to college. Remember, the group that benefited most from this lay between those that could afford it and those that qualified for a grant. And that's a large group.

Are we so rich and arrogant to give everyone not just primary, secondary but also college education?

It's not a case of being rich or arrogant, it's a case of recognising that qualified graduates in the workforce are our best natural resource.

WTF does the money come from?

Where it's coming from now. You need to cut spending? Stop buying government jets, sack bertie's make-up artist and "communications department" (read, spin doctors) and save money from those areas. Cancel the SSIA program, which has to be the biggest financial drain on the state.

Spend 12 years in college? Who is going to support these people? You, me?

12 years? I've been in here ten between undergrad and postgrad, and I'm a rare case because my original PhD was completed independently ahead of me by the german nuclear emergency response team and I had to start over from scratch. Where are you getting 12 years from?

It's a nice idea if money was magic and you didn't need to pay for accomodation, salaries, etc., . But this isn't Star Trek's Federation and money still exists. And you have to pay people and at the moment our governement cannot afford it.

But they can afford for a new jet, hundreds of thousands in makeup for bertie, an SSIA scheme that will cost billions according to some estimates, a garda helo that cost three times what it should have, tribunals costing hundreds of thousands a year - the list is rather long, and NOTHING on it is as important as the education system, with the possible exceptions of the health system (though it needs restructuring in a major way...).

You want to say have your future kids go to college - but want to make no sacrifice for it. Instead you want buy a stupidly expensive Dublin house, a new BMW and not accept that you can't have everything.

That is not only inaccurate, it's downright insulting, and I don't even know how to explain how insulting it actually is in an easy-to-follow format.

Bonkey,
we may be thinking of different cases, I was under the impression that she won her case and her son had to be taken into school and was there at present.

DeVore,
Amen.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by DeVore

why do you think Harvard is dwarfed by MIT?
The US understands that those who control the new ideas, control the cash,
DeV.

Maybe Harvard isn't a great example - as the vast majority go on to become massively wealthy. A better majority would be Yale (if you are talking about IV league schools). *they* control the whole bloody country. I'm sure all the MIT grads love the new age tech degree instead of the law/med degrees. That's why they haven't lost jobs, right?

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Sparks
NOTHING on it is as important as the education system, with the possible exceptions of the health system (though it needs restructuring in a major way...).
That is not only inaccurate, it's downright insulting, and I don't even know how to explain how insulting it actually is in an easy-to-follow format. at present.

Don;'t get me wrong here: it would be great if it could be afforded, but people are all talk to say "give us this" or "give us that" when the likes of free fees are brought up; the money is there but it is going to **** like you mentioned - the tribunals, the jets, the makeup. Why campaign to have free fees when we will still be paying *more* for all the crap above. Why not campaign for stopping money-draining tribunals so that we don't have to pay increased taxes for free education.

If you don't we lose either way. Stop the wastage: the money is there but we'll end up paying loads for what we want and loads *more* for what we don't, but people seem to just accept that.

Sand

Sand.... did you miss the part where I said I'd pay 1% more tax to support free 3rd level?

No, I saw it quite clearly - I just wouldnt pay 1% more tax to support free 3rd level for *everyone*:) .

If someone stays in college as a post grad, its quite possible they will end up creating another Trintech (formed from a campus company)... that generates 1000 Irish jobs and a TON of cash into the country in taxes etc.

Oh yeah, thats the result were looking for. I dont mind funding students of proven ( via points system for example, then later college exams ) ability pursuing economically viable courses - that stand a greater chance of resulting in 1000 irish jobs and increased tax revenue than say, a guy who scrapes the points to get into say a celtic languages course and decides to go for it cause hes not sure what else to do with himself, its free, and sure isnt the night life only mighty. If he wants to pursue such a wasteful course then he should do so out of his own pocket surely?

We need to be in that race or go back to farming.

I agree 100%, Irelands has few natural resources so an educated workforce is our only real resource, but we cant just throw money at it and hope it works out. We need to spend money in such a way that encourages people with the ability to pursue courses that get them out the other side with the potential to either attract foriegn investment or set up their own companies.

Sand

Oh well, looks like the government has failed to find the spheres to undertake some much needed reform - again.

http://www.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=32615

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
No, I saw it quite clearly - I just wouldnt pay 1% more tax to support free 3rd level for *everyone*:) .

So, third-level education is not - in your opinion - a right.

Rather, you think the government should be investing in increasing our "natural resource" for our indstries, in order to make more money.

Nice dehumanising way to look at it, I suppose.

I think you'd find it damned hard to sell to any electorate, though, so I doubt it would ever be considered as a practical solution.

jc

l3rian

Mr Dempsey has said that this issue of the re-introduction of third level college fees is off the political agenda.

This is good news for everyone. However, I wonder how much he will increase the registration fees?

Sparks

An important point is that while this is a good thing, it doesn't do a thing to fix the many real problems in the education system - it just stops him creating even more...

Sand

So, third-level education is not - in your opinion - a right.

No of course not. It has to be a two way process , the government should offer funding to boost the economy but the student has to display the ability to repay the government faith in them - faith demonstrated by funding - to repay such by increasing the knowledge of the economy or as dev mentioned creating new companies. 3rd level education in and of itself isnt some great and wonderful thing - Ive met far smarter and more capable people outside of a university than the complete and utter wasters Ive met in them.

Nice dehumanising way to look at it, I suppose.

The government isnt your best mate spotting you a tenner whilst your waiting for pay day. It has a duty to justify its expenditure to the public whose money it is spending. Dehumanising? Just a word.

I think you'd find it damned hard to sell to any electorate, though, so I doubt it would ever be considered as a practical solution.

Maybe Im a cynic but Id reckon youd find it hard to sell any practical solution to an electorate - I cant blame politicians tho - If I was in their shoes I probably wouldnt see the problem spending other peoples money on popular causes.

This is good news for everyone.

Good news for wasters/wealthy people imo.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Firstly, I haven't read every post in this thread, so if I go over old ground: (a) forgive me, or (b) don't, and point out my stupidity!

However, what I have read has been some of the most interesting opinion posted on the forum for a long time. Good stuff out of all of you.

I saw the news today of Dempsey's press conference and nearly spat my cornflakes all over the TV. Unless I was dreaming, I could have sworn I heard somebody mention that the introduction of college fees would have yielded only 15 million Euro. Can anyone seriously tell me that the government, as keepers of the public purse, couldn't find that extra 15 million to spend on access programs for the disadvantaged? Surely they could have told Harney to lay off the complimentary chocolates on the G4...sorry, couldn't resist the temptation...

I started college the year that "half fees" were introduced, i.e. the year before fees were fully done away with. I paid £870 (I think) to do Arts in UCD. I had wanted to do a journalism course, didn't get the points for either of the two courses in Ireland, and the UK was definitely out on the grounds of cost. Also, any college outside Dublin was a no-no because of cost. Living at home and commuting was the preferred option.

Both my parents worked, but throughout first year there was very little money available to me. Basically, they paid for my monthly commuter ticket, and fed me. Other than that I survived on about £15 a week, most of which my granny used to give me on the Sunday visit. By the end of first year I got sick of no money, so got myself a job with Burger King. That Summer I moved to Aer Rianta and found myself earning a decent few bob.

But I was lucky. Arts is not the most labour intensive course...certainly time on campus was at a minimum. By the first semester of my 3rd year I was working a 32 hour week, and doing about 10 hours in college. That was to pay the cost of on campus accommodation, which in turn helped facilitate the job. It was tiring, but doable.But consider this: if I was doing a more intensive course, say a science or engineering course, with up to 30 hours a week plus study, could I have maintained the job?

I read with interest Bonkey's remarks about his father's sacrifices to put him and his siblings through college. I quote from his account:

It has meant fewer foreign holidays, and other sacrifices over the past 30 years, but thats what he reckoned it took, and he put his luxury aside for half his life to ensure that we got to go through university irrespective of whether or not we had to pay fees etc

My parents did something similar. But we had no foreign holidays. No car until the mid-90s. Its not always a question of luxuries folks, some parents find themselves doing without essentials to put their kids through college.

Now, from my own perspective, free fees helped facilitate me going to university, and getting a decent degree. From there I managed to get into a career which pays an above average income, and I'm grateful for that. I'm not from what would be described as a disadvantaged background, but money was always tight, and I'm not talking discretionary spending. Paying college fees would have made things more difficult, but not impossible. In addition, as I've pointed out above, had I chosen a different course, one which was more economically useful, things would have been harder still.

Personally I'm with Dev on the issue of 3rd level funding. I would take an extra 1% tax to cover college (and other education) expenditure. In fact, I wish some political party would adopt it as policy! As an alternative, I am open to the idea of student loans to be repaid on reaching a certain income level post-graduation, with some exceptions. I believe there are some careers which should be exempt...nursing, teaching etc. I know people aren't going to agree with me on that, but it would help attract (and retain) people to those professions. Consideration could also be given to allowing temporary exemptions to those in careers which are considered economically vital, if that was a viable option.

Sparks

if I was doing a more intensive course, say a science or engineering course, with up to 30 hours a week plus study, could I have maintained the job?

Engineering (in TCD at least) starts at 40 hours a week in first year, plus study time. It doesn't get any lighter from there on in. So it's doubtful you could hold any job. In fact through most of fourth year, I couldn't afford eight hours sleep a night and wound up surviving for a year on four or five hours a night. Plus the five or six 48-hour days.
And while that sounds tough, it was a piece of cake compared to medical students....

Cork

A number of years ago - I had to work 50+ hours a week and got paid miserable wages plus I had to do pretty hard professional exams.

Free third level fees for people earning over 100k has been achieved by politicians pandering to the well to do in our society.

It was similar to the property tax debate.

I think Noel Dempsey at least delivered some good measures yesterday to increase participation. I think, he deserves credit.

Lemming

Originally posted by Cork

Free third level fees for people earning over 100k has been achieved by politicians pandering to the well to do in our society.

People earning over 100k?

or ...

HOUSEHOLDS earning over 100k?

Me thinks that Dempseh (that's a deliberate typo) wanted to introduce the latter if I'm not mistaken, no? Hmmm .. that would be a different kettle of fish altogether now wouldn't it?

Anyway, it's all over now - he backed down. And lo and behold he's apparently managed to 'find' 42m for grants elsewhere (according to the 'Star' this morning).

Imposter

Before I go on I got a grant while going to college!

Surely the economics of free fees make sense. A 'rich' family undoubtedly benifits from free fees but surely poor families benifit from the health system.

What i'm trying to say is if you take college fees as a measure of income tax (say 1% of everyone in the system) Then a low income family, who would have got free fees and a grant, still get the grant ot help with expenses. Their 1% contribution towards fees is negligable. Take the richer family. Their 1% is substantial but it is probably lower per year (but more over your income-tax life) than the cost of fees.

Take health as a counter argument. I would imagine that lower income families would use more than their (income-tax) contributions to the health service but we don't see them having an extra charge for this. Take middle class (or for this example, those who have a car but could (in theory) use public transport), they benifit from the system as their contribution towards roads etc is less than their usage.

While richer families could afford to pay fees surely they are already paying for this in their income taxes. I'm all for social equality but only to a point.

I also agree (with some) that something must be done with the suitability of people to courses and the entrance system but that's a different discussion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Ive met far smarter and more capable people outside of a university than the complete and utter wasters Ive met in them.

No argument from me on that one....university attendance is no true indicator of intelligence or ability. However, increasinly in the modern world, university degrees - rightly or wrongly - have become "de rigeur" in getting a foothold in many industries.

What is becoming increasingly interesting to note is that many industries now look for a degree as an entry requirement - but not necessarily a relevant degree! AIB's IT Graduate Recruitment program - when I went through it - did not require that the degree be in any way IT-relevant, it was simply an entry-requirement : you had to have graduated from a recognised university. Candidates were then chosen based on their performance in aptitude tests and interviews. Upon recruitment, they were trained in the relevant fields of IT.

While this may not be practical for every company, it does raise the interesting point that AIB's policy was formed from studies which showed that your degree is significant only in showing certain aptitudes, which are not always the ones you would imagine are apparent....like IT students having aptitudes for IT and so on.

It has a duty to justify its expenditure to the public whose money it is spending.

Agreed, but if that money is to be spent on promoting industry in general, rather than the populace in general, why not get industry to fund it through increased corporate taxation, rather than suggesting that it come from public taxation?

Take DeVore's 1% tax increase notion. Personally, while I dont think its an ideal solution, I'd happily pay 1% extra tax (when I move back to Ireland) if that money went directly into extra spending on public education.

However, in your vision, where any such spending would be targetted at a subsection of the population in order to benefit industry, then I would have a serious problem with it. If it is a cost being incurred to benefit industry, then raise corporate tax by 1% - or whatever percentage it takes - to pay for it.

If its a good investment, which would be to industry's benefit, then surely they should have no grounds for complaint - it will be ultimately to their benefit. If it is not a good investment, then there is no reason to suggest that it is a good thing for the public to spend their money on it instead, unless it somehow is the public's job to subsidise industry.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
However, in your vision, where any such spending would be targetted at a subsection of the population in order to benefit industry, then I would have a serious problem with it. If it is a cost being incurred to benefit industry, then raise corporate tax by 1% - or whatever percentage it takes - to pay for it.

The problem with raising corporation tax is that, in Ireland, low corporation tax is one of the primary drivers of the economy. That is why the government makes assurances about not touching corporation tax for a given number of years when they would not dream of doing the same with personal taxation. Only when we have the infrastructure and indigenous industry should the low corporation tax be altered.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The problem with raising corporation tax is that, in Ireland, low corporation tax is one of the primary drivers of the economy.

Yes, and Sand asserts that a well-educated is our primary natural resource, and thus clearly another primary driver of the economy.

I fail to see why it is in the public's interest to fund either - let alone both - which is what is effectively what would happen if we asked the public to pay for "targetted education". Not only would the public be paying something which benefits industry, but they would also be doing so to avoid the industry having to pay for it themselves.

Ultimately, any and all such assurances by the government, and a continued practice of getting the public to bear the extra costs for the benefit of industry is no different to subsidisation.

I thought the modern vision for trade was to remove such artificial "imbalances" as subsidisation? Such protectionism is supposed to be considered a bad thing...and that free markets are the way forward.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, and Sand asserts that a well-educated is our primary natural resource, and thus clearly another primary driver of the economy.

This is true too. IMO, slightly less so than low corporation tax since qualified individuals can either be shipped in or can work from their own locations.

I fail to see why it is in the public's interest to fund either - let alone both - which is what is effectively what would happen if we asked the public to pay for "targetted education". Not only would the public be paying something which benefits industry, but they would also be doing so to avoid the industry having to pay for it themselves.

This would be true if we didn't have to compete with other countries for inward investment. Doing so creates economic growth which then pays for more education, health etc.

Ultimately, any and all such assurances by the government, and a continued practice of getting the public to bear the extra costs for the benefit of industry is no different to subsidisation.

Yet, if we were to remove these assurances, the companies that are attracted to such assurances would be less likely to locate here and those present here would be more likely to look elsewhere. We would end up with a situation of possibly raising less money from corporation tax than we currently do.

I thought the modern vision for trade was to remove such artificial "imbalances" as subsidisation? Such protectionism is supposed to be considered a bad thing...and that free markets are the way forward.

Unless you consider competition in corporation tax part of this trade picture.

I realise that the obvious response is "Yes well we should not be so dependent on foreign inward investment". Yet the only way to develop a decent indegenous industry is to improve infrastructure and education and to do this, we need the money from multinationals paying corporation tax. Since we compete with other countries, we have to maintain competitive corporation tax.