Student Debt Slavery:

[Fletch]

So you think that this government should have made more cuts?

What sort of simplistic comment is that?

I made it as simple as I could so you could understand

Corbyn have said time and time again they they want to borrow more
They want to renationalise various utilities and railways
They want to borrow more to pay nurses and policemen more.
And they want to write off student debt which they say will cost £100 billion

So do you want more debt or less debt.
Make your mind up

I'll make it simple for you too then.

No debt = no money

So in your view, debt is not slavery
Is that correct?

How do you get that from my comment?

[MungoBrush]

So you think that this government should have made more cuts?

I'll make it simple for you too then.

No debt = no money

So in your view, debt is not slavery
Is that correct?

How do you get that from my comment?

[/quote]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

[Fletch]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.

[MungoBrush]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.

So is your position that "the many" should pay higher taxes so that "the few" can go to University for free?

[Fletch]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.

So is your position that "the many" should pay higher taxes so that "the few" can go to University for free?

woosh

[Cannydc]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.

So is your position that "the many" should pay higher taxes so that "the few" can go to University for free?

Is it unfair to suggest that we, as a nation, gain from better educated kids and many more of them (rather than the few, we are talking 40%+ here) ?

In which case yes, it actually is worth paying for.

It's another one of those 'infrastructure' investments which Tories are so keen on cutting.

[MungoBrush]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.

So is your position that "the many" should pay higher taxes so that "the few" can go to University for free?

Is it unfair to suggest that we, as a nation, gain from better educated kids and many more of them (rather than the few, we are talking 40%+ here) ?

In which case yes, it actually is worth paying for.

It's another one of those 'infrastructure' investments which Tories are so keen on cutting.

Well I agree that it makes sense for the government to fund out of taxes things that we all benefit from
Like roads, police, emergency services, education (up to a point) etc
But I dont think that ordinary taxpayers (ie that 60%) should have to pay higher taxes so that the few (40%) can get tertiary education free.
Particularly as usually a higher education will lead to a higher paying career.
I see that as "the many" paying but "the few" benefitting.

[Cannydc]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.

So is your position that "the many" should pay higher taxes so that "the few" can go to University for free?

Is it unfair to suggest that we, as a nation, gain from better educated kids and many more of them (rather than the few, we are talking 40%+ here) ?

In which case yes, it actually is worth paying for.

It's another one of those 'infrastructure' investments which Tories are so keen on cutting.

Well I agree that it makes sense for the government to fund out of taxes things that we all benefit from
Like roads, police, emergency services, education (up to a point) etc
But I dont think that ordinary taxpayers (ie that 60%) should have to pay higher taxes so that the few (40%) can get tertiary education free.
Particularly as usually a higher education will lead to a higher paying career.
I see that as "the many" paying but "the few" benefitting.

I have always said that it is fair for students to pay something - to have an investment in their own future and to lower dropout rates.

However, by the same token, trebling fees from £3k to £9k was frankly outrageous.

And it is still worth repeating that today's low cost (rather than free) graduates will be benefiting the UK economy to keep taxes DOWN.

[MungoBrush]

You started this thread claiming that debt was slavery
Then you said "No debt = no money"
Have you changed your mind

I started a thread linking to an article discussing the use of debt as a means of controlling people.

How do you get from debt slavery to no debt = no money meaning I might have changed my mind?

It's the very fact that no debt = no money that makes debt slavery possible.[/quote]

So is your position that "the many" should pay higher taxes so that "the few" can go to University for free?[/quote]

Is it unfair to suggest that we, as a nation, gain from better educated kids and many more of them (rather than the few, we are talking 40%+ here) ?

In which case yes, it actually is worth paying for.

It's another one of those 'infrastructure' investments which Tories are so keen on cutting.[/quote]

Well I agree that it makes sense for the government to fund out of taxes things that we all benefit from
Like roads, police, emergency services, education (up to a point) etc
But I dont think that ordinary taxpayers (ie that 60%) should have to pay higher taxes so that the few (40%) can get tertiary education free.
Particularly as usually a higher education will lead to a higher paying career.
I see that as "the many" paying but "the few" benefitting.[/quote]

I have always said that it is fair for students to pay something - to have an investment in their own future and to lower dropout rates.

However, by the same token, trebling fees from £3k to £9k was frankly outrageous.

And it is still worth repeating that today's low cost (rather than free) graduates will be benefiting the UK economy to keep taxes DOWN.[/quote]

Tertiary education is optional.
OK, you think that it should be subsidised by taxpayers
Would that just be the first degree?
What about a really smart student who goes on to study for a Masters, or Doctorate?
What about courses at the local technical college?
What about vocational courses like cooking or photography?

[Cannydc]

Tertiary education is optional.
OK, you think that it should be subsidised by taxpayers
Would that just be the first degree?
What about a really smart student who goes on to study for a Masters, or Doctorate?
What about courses at the local technical college?
What about vocational courses like cooking or photography?

You are mixing quotes somehow.

I didn't say the top quote.

Never mind. I believe that our university students are also many of our future entrepreneurs, and that there are actually very few courses which, when completed, may not result in business startups.

Second and third degrees come in different shapes and sizes. A Masters Degree and a PhD certainly improve people's success in all walks of life. At that stage many go on to teach, imparting their knowledge to others.

All grist to the mill, as far as I am concerned.

Why do you think that the most successful business nations send most of their youth to university ?

For your interest, The UK spends 1.3% of GDP on higher education - lagging behind 3.1% in the US, 2.4% in South Korea and 2.6% in Canada. Within Europe, the UK is behind countries including France, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Portugal and the Netherlands.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11438140

[MungoBrush]

Tertiary education is optional.
OK, you think that it should be subsidised by taxpayers
Would that just be the first degree?
What about a really smart student who goes on to study for a Masters, or Doctorate?
What about courses at the local technical college?
What about vocational courses like cooking or photography?

You are mixing quotes somehow.

I didn't say the top quote.

Never mind. I believe that our university students are also many of our future entrepreneurs, and that there are actually very few courses which, when completed, may not result in business startups.

Second and third degrees come in different shapes and sizes. A Masters Degree and a PhD certainly improve people's success in all walks of life. At that stage many go on to teach, imparting their knowledge to others.

All grist to the mill, as far as I am concerned.

Why do you think that the most successful business nations send most of their youth to university ?

For your interest, The UK spends 1.3% of GDP on higher education - lagging behind 3.1% in the US, 2.4% in South Korea and 2.6% in Canada. Within Europe, the UK is behind countries including France, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Portugal and the Netherlands.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11438140

I don't dispute what you say about the benefits of education
But this thread is about who pays for it - the student or the taxpayer?

Should brikkies and plumbers pay extra tax to fund the university fees of the Architect?
And if there was a spare £100 billion available in the budget, would you use that money to write off student debt as the highest priority?

[Cannydc]

YES.

Brickies and Plumbers send their children to university too.

And they benefit from the economy being strengthened by a better educated workforce just like you and I do.

As a matter of interest, I don't have kids in Primary education, but still pay for other people's. I don't use libraries, but pay for others to do so. And I have no use for midwives etc either, but....

PS And the £100m was a Tory lie. Corbyn NEVER promised to write off current debts. Best stop using that made up figure, for the sake of accuracy..

[MungoBrush]

PS And the £100m was a Tory lie. Corbyn NEVER promised to write off current debts. Best stop using that made up figure, for the sake of accuracy..

That £100 billion was Labour's figure - not Tories:

"When asked on Sunday’s BBC’s Andrew Marr Show how much wiping out current student debt would cost, Angela Rayner said “it’s £100 billion which they estimate currently, which will increase”.

[McAz]

Not really...

"The Student Loans Company has put the outstanding balance due from student loans in England at £89.3 billion (which includes English students studying in the UK, and EU students studying in England). This isn’t just about tuition fee loans—it also includes the cost of maintenance loans. It goes up to £100.5 billion UK wide." (FullFact.org)

...though the actual amount may be lower for various structural reasons.

[Cannydc]

PS And the £100m was a Tory lie. Corbyn NEVER promised to write off current debts. Best stop using that made up figure, for the sake of accuracy..

That £100 billion was Labour's figure - not Tories:

"When asked on Sunday’s BBC’s Andrew Marr Show how much wiping out current student debt would cost, Angela Rayner said “it’s £100 billion which they estimate currently, which will increase”.

The figure was to wipe out ALL student debt - a policy never quoted or approved by Corbyn. Marr asked how much a non-existent policy would cost, and was answered. That figure was then grabbed by Tory HQ and quoted widely as fact. It was never fact, they knew it, but as usual it made no difference to them. Tell a lie often enough and some will believe it (Joseph Goebbels).