Bliar, Bliar your pants are on fire!

[Timber Loftis]

Barry, in the U.S. we have loan forgiveness programs for public sector work. A few of the law students I went to school with started a non-profit and receive a huge loan reduction credit for running it. HERE's an example. This was started by a guy one year behind me in law school.

As well, my firm just introduced a public service one-year program. The first person to enter it will be graduating law school this year, and then going to work in legal aid for one year, while retaining her guaranteed place in the firm thereafter.

In other words, there are ways to address your concerns.

I am not trying to "make" it a commodity. School has value and costs money. It should be paid for by those who benefit from it, not society as a whole -- it's that simple.

Now, Skunk or someone mentioned discouraging people from going to graduate school for the arts or some other more low-paying jobs. Well, very true. I chose law school over graduate school in English for one reason -- $$$$$$. However, that was my decision. I could have toughed it out through graduate school and then tried to eek out a living.

Ultimately, though, you've got to recognize there are Many well-paying jobs in the arts -- from being a professor to owning an art gallery to painting to writing for TSR. There are simply FEWER good jobs than people seeking them. That means some markets are Flooded. Accordingly, we should let the natural economic process discourage people from those jobs. If there are just simply too many frikkin writers out there, you've made a bad decision if you enter that field of work, regardless of how your heartstrings may tug at you.

[EDIT] I saw Blair defending this on "Questions" the other night -- and he defended his position quite well. What is it about his plan that bothers you guys? If I understand it correctly, his plan involves no up front money for students.

Now, I realize there was a gentleman's agreement not to even consider the topic, and I understand he broke that (and I'd like to know why if any of you know), but his plan sounds pretty good. He claims that currently up-front costs discourage some poor students, which sounds true.

[ 01-27-2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Well, first off the current up front costs were brought in by Blair a few years ago and we were the ones opposing them then! He's now managed to turn it around so that now suddenly we're in favour of them and he's against them, which is complete nonsense. He was the one who wanted them, so if they're a bad system he should admit he got it wrong and that the left had it right.

Anyway, whilst I don't doubt that students benefit the whole of society does as well, as such education can't be viewed as simply another good that has to be bought and sold. Its much more complicated than that. Also, your point that public sector work can receive loan forgiveness is a bit moot as my point was not specifically about public sector work but just used them as an example. Would everyone who couldn't afford the graduate tax be forced to pay it? If not then why is it different from a tax on the rich?

That would be my point to you - why not just introduce an outright tax rate increase on the highest tax bracket to solve the funding crisis. By all of your own logic its identical to the Graduate tax - the people who benefit from education pay for it. By attacking that notion you are admitting that not everyone benefits from an education financially, which begs the question of why they should be forced to pay as much as someone who has?

[Timber Loftis]

I would say, in keeping with my "flooded markets" comment, that if someone takes their education and does not benefit economically from it, they have wasted a precious resource entrusted to them. Besides, even without "economic" benefit, the quality-of-life benefit gained from simply Knowing more is worth value as well, and it too should not be given away for free on the backs of the taxpayers.

I think the public sector is a fine way to address the concerns you mentioned. If you get an education, you should be able to get a good paying job, or be a samaritan and do public sector and/or public interest non-profit type work for the public good. If you can't do either, well, aren't you just dead weight anyway?

I just can't tell you how much the "benefits the whole of society" sounds like Reagan's trickle-down economics. It really does, only his applied to the business owners benefitting all of society (i.e. by letting them keep more of their money, they will invest more and create more jobs) just as learned academes benefit all of society (i.e. let them learn for free and they will think great thoughts, write great works, make great art and benefit us all). It really is the same economic theory. Think about that and how much you liked/like Reagan for that policy.

Thanks for the info about TB instituting the fees to begin with. I'm on the same page with him. First, students should pay. Now that they are paying, one should do the second task: structure their payment so that they can shoulder it better.

But, that's just me. I've made my case as best I can.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Anyway, whilst I don't doubt that students benefit the whole of society does as well, as such education can't be viewed as simply another good that has to be bought and sold. Its much more complicated than that. Also, your point that public sector work can receive loan forgiveness is a bit moot as my point was not specifically about public sector work but just used them as an example. Would everyone who couldn't afford the graduate tax be forced to pay it? If not then why is it different from a tax on the rich?

As I said, the beauty of a graduate tax is the flexibility that it implies. There is no reason why it can't be tagged to a specific tax group for example, so that it only kicks in when your income rises above say, 15K per year.

So in this way, if you opt to 'give back to society' by taking a low-paid public sector job, you are automatically free of the graduate tax burden since you are not paid enough to be subject to the tax.

As for the current system, the 'up-front costs' more than discourage poor students - but Blair's alternative would only make matters worse. You see, in the UK, the basic student loan + allowance is NOT enough to pay for your living costs anyway.

Now traditionally, banks used to pick up the slack, loaning students the money to tide them over - but with loans in the background, the banks feel (rightly) that the student is already too indebted and therefore a high risk. The result is that the banks simply refuse to help these days - so poor students (who are unable to lean on their parents) are even less likely to be able to finish their studies.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [EDIT] Now, I realize there was a gentleman's agreement not to even consider the topic, and I understand he broke that (and I'd like to know why if any of you know), but his plan sounds pretty good. He claims that currently up-front costs discourage some poor students, which sounds true.

It's more than a gentleman's agreement. Before each election each political party produces their manifesto, a list of things they will do if they gain power. Labour's 2001 manifesto categorically ruled out the introduction of top up fees, now we all know that politicians aren't always honest, but this issue flies in the face of Labour party values.

"We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated against them"

Blair has a majority of 160 votes in the House of Commons - how on earth has he alienated so many of his MP's? Win or lose he's going to be deeply wounded by this vote.

BTW - the day I hear Blair actually answer a question in Questions to the PM I'll vote Tory!

[ 01-27-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[wellard]

I just heard on the radio that Blair "won" by just 3 votes. From an on paper majority of 160.

Donut, please don't even joke about voting Tory. Some jokes are just not funny I thought you were Liberal?

Timber, just for info, The British and Australians have always been brought up with the notion that Education like Health should be free and fair to everyone. (A very good ideal, worth preserving) The very fact that the so called socialist party is the bringer of this sort of change is so frustrating (bloody criminal actually) The very fact that we have to even talk about what level of the cost should be born by the student is a step backward IMO

[Timber Loftis]

I simply disagree, Wellard. While I think health care is more appropriately nationalized, I do not feel the same vis-a-vis education. And, as I've said before, I'm only trying to be fair.

[Barry the Sprout]

He won by five votes, not three. I'd like to claim that its a moral victory, but its not. Its a defeat which ever way you look at it.

Shit.

[Donut]

Originally posted by wellard: I just heard on the radio that Blair "won" by just 3 votes. From an on paper majority of 160. Donut, please don't even joke about voting Tory. Some jokes are just not funny I thought you were Liberal?

You probably heard that if three Labour MP's had voted against the Government they would have lost. Interesting that one of the leading "rebels" nick Brown, should switch his vote on the last day. He and a number of others are thought to have been "asked" to change sides by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. It was Gordon Brown that was shafted by Teflon Tony over the leadership of the Labour party proving that a "gentleman's agreement" is worthless unless it's made by a gentleman.

You're right about the voting Tory bluff wellard! In 1974, for the "who rules Britain" I did enter the voting booth intending to vote Tory but I couldn't do it. i remember standing in the booth with my pencil hovering over the Tory box but when it came down the cross was next to the Labour candidate.

Yes, I consider myself to be a Liberal Democrat (please note the capitalisation, there is a great deal of difference between a liberal and a Liberal)

Barry - take heart, Teflon Tony continues to take hits, it's only a matter of time now. I note that his team have now leaked details of the Hutton Inquiry to the Sun Newspaper. Ironic - they have leaked details of an Iinquiry into a leak! What will these scummy toerags do next!

[Davros]

Originally posted by Donut: Ironic - they have leaked details of an Iinquiry into a leak! What will these scummy toerags do next!

"Sir Humphrey - please set up a LEAK ENQUIRY".
.
"Yes Prime Minister"