Does this college shift people's opinions to the Right?

europerson

I was just in bed last night thinking about this. When I came into College, I would have described myself as a broad social democrat. However, I seem to be sliding towards the Right of politics (and not minding). This appears to be fairly common-place among my peers. Is this a phenomenon others feel Trinity harbours? Maybe it's just in Economics.

xeduCat

Stop listening to Barrett, and normal service will resume.

Time Magazine

But Barrett provides a helluva case.

Crash

on average, i'd possibly consider myself slightly more left of centre than when i began - its most likely just yee economics people - the idea of the marketplace as God is messing with your political ideas :P

ApeXaviour

&#231 wrote: »

on average, i'd possibly consider myself slightly more left of centre than when i began - its most likely just yee economics people - the idea of the marketplace as God is messing with your political ideas :P

Seconded in its entirety. Must be just a BESS phenomenon. I've become less into activism but without a doubt more left of centre.

Hermione*

I hope not! I'd be quite liberal, and reasonably left of centre ... I don't want to go to Trinity and end up with my parent's PD style economic views.

I've encountered more right wing (on economic issues, at least) people in UCD commerce than in my course, so maybe it is more to do with faculty than college. Tbh, there's only so much economic benefit to the country from history students ,ie, me.

Running Bing

I think its just economics. Mankiw doesnt help;)

Beastieboy

I remember one of the economics lecturers was talking (a few years ago now)about doing some Marxist economics, i don't know if it ever came to anything. I think the teaching in BESS/Economics is definitely weighted to the right and its easy to get washed away in the tide....

gilroyb

College provides more opportunities to challenge your beliefs, so even though you perhaps thought you were a social democrat, you hadn't really thought through the full range of issues. Maybe you always were right wing, you just never got the chance to find out.

There is also the whole argument that theories shape the way one learns, so experiencing life for four years through economics makes one more likely to analyze all elements of politics the same way. That said, just accepting right wing economics (and by that I obviously mean Barrett) as correct suggests a lack of critical analysis. Try and take a few PJ Drudy courses and see if you feel your political pendulum swinging left.


(Just to be clear, I never took Drudy's course as I'm comfortable with the fact that I'm right. Then again I also never took Barrett's.)

Right_Side

I'm definitely economically right winged. Left wing economics makes me laugh.

Oh yeah and I hate unions.

All hail Trinity.

Edwardius

I concur... damn lefties. Actually i think it might be something to do with being at the age where people get sense and some cop on! Now lets go and beat up some travellers!

cuckoo

To second Dead Ed (and those are words i thought i'd never type....:rolleyes: ), it couild be a natural side effect of the ageing process. Remember the saying, if you're not a liberal at 20 you don't have a heart, if you're not a conservative at 30 you don't have a brain.

(liberal and conservative are used to describe general politics, rather than allegiances to any political party)

Banphrionsa

Surely you jest with the title of this post? Of course, everything is relative. Relative to something else. What's left and what's right? Can be different for each one of us? For example, I am overseas, and there has been a lot of press in the States that universities tend to move a lot of students to the left of centre. In particular, there was a conservative (to the right?) student who formed a group to challenge all the professors at UCLA that were to the left, from his perspective. Created a website to accost them. Then again, if universities were following what Newman suggested in his "Idea of a university," then students would be exposed to left, right, middle, whatever, thereby benefiting from multiple perspectives.:cool:

Andrew 83

Right_Side wrote:

I'm definitely economically right winged. Left wing economics makes me laugh.

Oh yeah and I hate unions.

All hail Trinity.

Why do you hate unions?


I think it depends a lot on the course people do but also the people they mix with. I have never encountered more right wing people than some of the people I've met in Trinity but then again I've rarely met more left wing people too. I think the internet (particularly boards.ie) seems to have a disproportionate amount of right wingers expressing views on boards like this but I'd say the majority of the college population would think left even if they're not activist about it.

Personally I've become much more left wing.

Barry Aldwell

TCD über alles!

(Others would describe me as being right wing on a lot of topics, but I prefer not to classify myself like that. And it's nothing particularly new since I came to college)

Right_Side

Andrew 83 wrote:

Why do you hate unions?

Look at Germany, France, Italy... thats why! Look at our health service... thats why! Look at the driving test backlog... thats why! Would you like me to continue?

Unions demand higher wages for workers and thus increase unemployment in an economy by keeping wage rates above the market clearing rate. Without getting into it too deeply this makes an economy very inefficient and less productive. International competitiveness is destroyed by high wages and inflexible staff.

Unions increase hiring/firing costs by increasing worker rights, companies hire fewer staff even when required. E.g. my business is booming I want to increase production, instead of hiring 5 new workers I get my existing staff to do overtime as I know hiring the new workers would make them unfireable in the future. This is what the French under 26 law sought to help. Young and uneducated people are most effected.

I think it depends a lot on the course people do but also the people they mix with. I have never encountered more right wing people than some of the people I've met in Trinity but then again I've rarely met more left wing people too. I think the internet (particularly boards.ie) seems to have a disproportionate amount of right wingers expressing views on boards like this but I'd say the majority of the college population would think left even if they're not activist about it.

I disagree with this. I think the more educated people are, the more likely to be economically right wing they are. While less educated people support left wing economics. E.g. high support for Sinn Fein in "disadvantaged" areas.

DublinWriter

europerson wrote:

When I came into College, I would have described myself as a broad social democrat. However, I seem to be sliding towards the Right of politics (and not minding).

It's called 'getting old'.

DublinWriter

Right_Side wrote:

Oh yeah and I hate unions.

All hail Trinity.

If it wasn't for the Union and Labour movement of the early part of the 20th Century, you wouldn't be enjoying the protection of the Employment Laws today.

That is...presuming you have a job.

Right_Side

DublinWriter wrote:

If it wasn't for the Union and Labour movement of the early part of the 20th Century, you wouldn't be enjoying the protection of the Employment Laws today.

That is...presuming you have a job.

See above for my thoughts on employment laws.

Danger Bob

Hmm...I think I'll agree with Angry Banana and Europerson on this one. I've found myself becoming slightly more right wing since arriving in Trinity. However, I would've been fairly left-wing at the age of 16. The move to TCD just brought me to being slightly right of centre. I think it may be the economics talking though. I think its very difficult to engross yourself in a subject like that without gaining some belief that, perhaps, money makes the world go round.

I think that in some ways, being in a big think tank like Trinity, where there are many extremists on either side, people can get drawn one way or the other. I have always had a fundamental belief that socialism can't work in the modern world and, as such, I feel that I was perhaps pushed away from the left rather than pulled towards the right.

Hermione wrote:

I don't want to go to Trinity and end up with my parent's PD style economic views.

For some of us, this was pretty unavoidable...

Oh and I find it interesting that when I say I define myself as right of centre, some people call it a cop-out. While I have some strong right-orientated views, I also believe in the necessity of a certain amount of government intervention, I think that some welfare payments are vital and I love unions. (they stop the little guy from getting trod on)

Maybe we're just living in a very right-wing Ireland right now....

DublinWriter

Right_Side wrote:

Look at Germany, France, Italy... thats why! Look at our health service...

...yeah, and look at their health services!

While I do disagree with many of the outmoded employment laws in France, your advocacy of a complete return to the laissez faire type work practises of the 19th Century smacks of the type of opinion given out by the uneducated, inexperienced and over-privileged.

ferdi

DublinWriter wrote:

...yeah, and look at their health services!

While I do disagree with many of the outmoded employment laws in France, your advocacy of a complete return to the laissez faire type work practises of the 19th Century smacks of the type of opinion given out by the uneducated, inexperienced and over-privileged.

zing, well put mate

Right_Side

DublinWriter wrote:

...yeah, and look at their health services!

Are you saying they are better than ours? Not clear here.

While I do disagree with many of the outmoded employment laws in France, your advocacy of a complete return to the laissez faire type work practises of the 19th Century smacks of the type of opinion given out by the uneducated, inexperienced and over-privileged.

I'm not arguing for a return to laissez-faire, but more flexible labour markets are neccessary to decrease unemployment, attract investment etc.

"uneducated, inexperienced and over-privileged"... :rolleyes: ...whatever you want to believe, tbh.

This college made me wonder why people feel the need to label themselves left or right wing.

Andrew 83

Right_Side wrote:

Unions demand higher wages for workers and thus increase unemployment in an economy by keeping wage rates above the market clearing rate. Without getting into it too deeply this makes an economy very inefficient and less productive. International competitiveness is destroyed by high wages and inflexible staff.

That all smacks of blindly following the logic of mathematical models. The cost of living is very high in Ireland, one of the highest in Europe. A large reason for this is the sprialling out of control wages the rich are getting. The gap between the richest and the poorest in Ireland is one of the largest in the world. This means that it is very hard to live on a low wage. Unions ensure that workers get a fair price for their work and aren't just given the lowest employers can get away with (an amount that makes them struggle to make ends meet). The 'market clearing rate' is a myth. If people's only option is to take 7 euro an hour obviously they will if it's a choice between that or nothing but 7 euro an hour is not enough for anyone to make a living out of. Higher wages must be fought for by unions to allow people to live at a decent standard. There are no such problems for the rich as they are often excessively overpaid to begin with. Why should someone who literally has to break their back for a living get paid less that someone who sits in an office and puts numbers into a computer? It's just because of the advantages the rich and educated get based on their ability to get into high paid jobs and their control of campanies to pay higher wages to do these sort of jobs.

I disagree with this. I think the more educated people are, the more likely to be economically right wing they are. While less educated people support left wing economics. E.g. high support for Sinn Fein in "disadvantaged" areas.

Although Sinn Fein do put forward some left wing policies the main reason for their support I would venture is nationalism. Perhaps 'more educated' people support right wing economics in some cases because if the person is self interested they get the best deal out of it in the short term? That doesn't make it right.

Right_Side wrote:

I'm not arguing for a return to laissez-faire, but more flexible labour markets are neccessary to decrease unemployment, attract investment etc.

'Flexibility' is just a euphimism. It means job insecurity and a lack of social services. I notice that this doesn't seem to apply to those at the top of the wage structures, only those at the bottom. If job insecurity is so essential why shouldn't those in the 'professional' jobs be faced with it? Why shouldn't they have to work for 7 euro an hour?

cuckoo

Andrew 83 wrote:

Perhaps 'more educated' people support right wing economics in some cases because if the person is self interested they get the best deal out of it in the short term? That doesn't make it right.

Good point.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Being in a certain place, with its own particular mind set oughtn't affect your beliefs and values, if you are confident in the strengths of your convictions. Well, perhaps being exposed to new data which you weren't aware of before might lead you to modify your original outlook, but presumably not drastically, especially not in somewhere in Trinity, which is hardly an enormously different environment to the surrounding areas or the rest of the country, relative to say, some slums in India or a mansion in Beverly Hills.

To be perfectly frank, if one's outlook is changing inadvertedly, to the complete antithesis of one's original outlook, simply because you walk through front square every day, then you're just an ignorant sheep.

Also, I'd agree with most of what andrew83 said in the comment preceding the one before this. To be honest, I feel most people on the right are self serving assholes, that only look after their number one, and the world would be a much better place if these people were dead.

Boston

Andrew 83 wrote:

Although Sinn Fein do put forward some left wing policies the main reason for their support I would venture is nationalism. Perhaps 'more educated' people support right wing economics in some cases because if the person is self interested they get the best deal out of it in the short term? That doesn't make it right.

More allong the lines of they police areas that the gardi can't/won't, and maintain a loose code on conduct with regards the trafficing of drugs.

europerson

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

To be perfectly frank, if one's outlook is changing inadvertedly, to the complete antithesis of one's original outlook, simply because you walk through front square every day, then you're just an ignorant sheep.

I wouldn't call myself an ignorant sheep: I just noticed that I'm slightly more liberal than I used to be. I wouldn't call myself conservative or anything. This is of my own accord: I'm not just doing it to fit in or whatever you're insinuating.

Right_Side

Andrew 83 wrote:

That all smacks of blindly following the logic of mathematical models. The cost of living is very high in Ireland, one of the highest in Europe. A large reason for this is the sprialling out of control wages the rich are getting. The gap between the richest and the poorest in Ireland is one of the largest in the world. This means that it is very hard to live on a low wage. Unions ensure that workers get a fair price for their work and aren't just given the lowest employers can get away with (an amount that makes them struggle to make ends meet). The 'market clearing rate' is a myth. If people's only option is to take 7 euro an hour obviously they will if it's a choice between that or nothing but 7 euro an hour is not enough for anyone to make a living out of. Higher wages must be fought for by unions to allow people to live at a decent standard. There are no such problems for the rich as they are often excessively overpaid to begin with.

By trying to get workers a "fair price" unions force up wages which forces mobile capital to move abroad. Then suddenly there is no job where the once was one. More people claim social welfare etc. and all of a sudden bang recession!

Why should someone who literally has to break their back for a living get paid less that someone who sits in an office and puts numbers into a computer?

In your example the workers sitting in his office gets paid more than the person breaking their back. In this example the market values the office worker higher as his/her skills are scarcer than the manual worker so they get paid more.

Although Sinn Fein do put forward some left wing policies the main reason for their support I would venture is nationalism.

"Some" left wing policies!!!!

The are extreme left to the max!

They want 60% corporation tax, renationalisation of banks etc.

Perhaps 'more educated' people support right wing economics in some cases because if the person is self interested they get the best deal out of it in the short term? That doesn't make it right.

One could draw your conclusion or one could look at it differently.

In my opinion left wing supporters are more self-interested than right-wingers who seek to improve the whole economy. They want more benefits etc. for themselves to the determinant of the economy see France, Germany and Italy for examples. Whereas, right-wingers are prepared to sacrifice personal social welfare benefits for the good of the economy as a whole.

If job insecurity is so essential why shouldn't those in the 'professional' jobs be faced with it?

They have a higher bargaining power because they are scarcer therefore command better security.

Why shouldn't they have to work for 7 euro an hour?

See above.

Time Magazine

Andrew 83 wrote:

Why should someone who literally has to break their back for a living get paid less that someone who sits in an office and puts numbers into a computer?

My brother makes television shows. And they kick ass. One of his recent shows documented the lives of immigrants in Celtic Tiger Ireland and contrasted them to their previous lives. This meant travelling to places like Morroco and visiting their home towns. It was, by all measures, one helluva project that took so much of his time and effort.

I can't remember the specific figures but you can be assured its viewership was dismal compared to Coronation Street, which is hardly a back-break-inducing production. As the viewership ultimately dictates pay (advertising revenue), my brother got the equivalent of €7 an hour for it to the guy crunching number at a desk. [I'm quite sure he got far more than €7 an hour, but you see my point].

Now Andrew, let's assume you really enjoy a good episode Corrie, which I believe to be true. Are you going to change channels and watch No Place Like Home instead of it simply because the amount of effort put into its production was far greater? Of course not, nor would I. Persil and Aerial are not going to pay the same amount for a thirty-second slot with 100,000 people watching as with 1.2m housewives. The "natural" effect is that Corrie will get about 12 times the revenue as a fantastic sociological program. That is, in effect, the choice of the people. The same principle applies to Britney Spears over Beethoven.

The reason why people earn so much more money is not to do with effort. It's to do, ultimately, with what the consumer wants.

Sparks

Right_Side wrote:

I'm definitely economically right winged. Left wing economics makes me laugh.

Says the student whose college fees are being paid by the rest of society...

Awayindahils

Sparks wrote:

Says the student whose college fees are being paid by the rest of society...

actually many students who study economics, and who would appear as a result of the above conversation ot be more right wing, are infavour or reintroduction fees. not full scale fees, but fees similar to the way in which grants are done now. means testing but hopefully with a hell of a more effecient system. but thats a whole other barrel of worms. (burys barrel in 10 feets of concrete in the middle of the sahara)

as for right wing and left wing, my views it would appear are a complete and utter muddle. i can see the benefit of right wing economic polcies, i enjoy the benfits of left wing socialist values. left wing has conotations with freedom which suit my view on the world of live and let live, but left wing politics involves looking out for everyone and not just oneself. hopefully ill have some more clarity in 3 years time.

europerson

Awayindahils wrote:

(burys barrel in 10 feets of concrete in the middle of the sahara)

hopefully ill have some more clarity in 3 years time.

Don't worry: everyone has some Left and some Right in them!

Sparks

hopefully ill have some more clarity in 3 years time.

We've had a few hundred years now and no optimal solution as yet; I think your timescale may be a tad optimistic!

Awayindahils

Sparks wrote:

We've had a few hundred years now and no optimal solution as yet; I think your timescale may be a tad optimistic!

im not looking for an optimal solution. just that hopefully by the end of my time in college i'll be mroe sure of what i actually believe rather than what i think i believe.

Sparks

just that hopefully by the end of my time in college i'll be mroe sure of what i actually believe rather than what i think i believe.

Such beliefs change with experience; if they never change or evolve during your life, then I suggest buying a T-shirt with the word "Fanatic" on it in big, easy-for-the-rest-of-us-to-read letters

Right_Side

Sparks wrote:

Says the student whose college fees are being paid by the rest of society...

I would be open to a debate on the reintroduction of fees, to an extent. It would efficient to have the children of the rich paying fees, I think a €100,000 limit was discussed in the past. Below that I would be open to a discussion on a system of government loans to students to be paid back on graduation and when income exceeds a certain level but I would like to first hear a full debate on a matter. However, my reasons for opening the debate on the reintroduction of fees would be more from a college funding point of view than societal as college students are as I shall discuss below a good investment.

Investment in college students is a self-liquidating investment by the government. We will inevitably be the highest earners in the future and therefore the highest tax payers. We will attract more investment, inject more human capital and so on. So it is a case of spend a little now to make more in the future. It's a lot different to giving Joe Bloggs his weekly dole for scratching himself.

College students are like a piece of infrastructure, e.g. a road, without them an economy can’t be successful.

Boston

Right_Side wrote:

government loans to students to be paid back on graduation and when income exceeds a certain level but I would like to first hear a full debate on a matter.

You know what that sounds like, it sounds like the higher tax bracket to me. Students who graduate, more then repay their "debt" in the form of higher taxation.

gilroyb

Right_Side wrote:

In my opinion left wing supporters are more self-interested than right-wingers who seek to improve the whole economy. They want more benefits etc. for themselves to the determinant of the economy see France, Germany and Italy for examples. Whereas, right-wingers are prepared to sacrifice personal social welfare benefits for the good of the economy as a whole.

I'm sorry, but as an economics student I just have to say that this statement invalidates/undermines a good deal of economic theory. Rational choice is (generally) rational choice, not just for a small section of society. Both left and right wing supporters have their own self-interested views. Right wing voters don't vote right despite themselves, they vote right because they have the most to gain from a general economy running smoothly. Left wing voters vote left because they have most to gain from being supported (in whatever way) by the state. Each does what is best in their self interest.

People can vote left or right, but whichever they do their vote is correct.

Andrew 83

Right_Side wrote:

By trying to get workers a "fair price" unions force up wages which forces mobile capital to move abroad. Then suddenly there is no job where the once was one. More people claim social welfare etc. and all of a sudden bang recession!

While foreign capital moves abroad in the textiles industries etc with small shifts in economic circumstances there is no international evidence to suggest that pharmaceuticals or computer firms do. Ireland is a pretty cheap labour force as it is, plus if these companies were paying less to their top earners and more to the lower earners they'd be paying the same amount overall as they are now so why would they move?

Do you honestly think the level of inequality in Irish society today is acceptable? The only countries like it in the western world are the United States and Britain.

In your example the workers sitting in his office gets paid more than the person breaking their back. In this example the market values the office worker higher as his/her skills are scarcer than the manual worker so they get paid more.

Nurses are scarce. There's so few that lots have to brought in from Asia (who incidently are then denied citizenship rights). The reasons there's so few Irish nurses is because they are paid so horrendously. Being a nurse requires a lot of hard training. There's no reason why accountants, managers etc couldn't be brought in abroad like nurses are at lower pay. The reason is that those paying want to keep the positions that people like them do well paid.

"Some" left wing policies!!!!

The are extreme left to the max!

They want 60% corporation tax, renationalisation of banks etc.

They didn't practice what they preach when they were in government in the North. Upping corporation tax is something I'd support. Not to 60% but an EU wide harmonised rate of say 30-40% would be a good thing.

In my opinion left wing supporters are more self-interested than right-wingers who seek to improve the whole economy. They want more benefits etc. for themselves to the determinant of the economy see France, Germany and Italy for examples. Whereas, right-wingers are prepared to sacrifice personal social welfare benefits for the good of the economy as a whole.

No right wingers want to pay for their own social services and not for those of the people who can't afford them. That's no sacrifice, particularyl given their obscene incomes. While right wingers 'seek to improve the whole economy' (a comment I'd disagree with), left wingers attempt to improve the country by making everyone more equal. You clearly show in your posts that you have zero interest in a more fair society and in fact rabidly support inequality.

Angry Banana wrote:

The reason why people earn so much more money is not to do with effort. It's to do, ultimately, with what the consumer wants.

Everyone in society wants (and makes use of) teachers and nurses. Yet they get atrocious pay despite being two of the most important jobs in society. What proportion of society actually uses an actuary?

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

gilroyb wrote:

Right wing voters don't vote right despite themselves, they vote right because they have the most to gain from a general economy running smoothly. Left wing voters vote left because they have most to gain from being supported (in whatever way) by the state. Each does what is best in their self interest.

This might come as a surprise to you, but not everyone votes the way that they perceive will have greatest positive personal impact. There is such a thing as philanthrophy and altruism you know. If I vote left wing economically, it's not necessarily because I hope to reap the awards of greater benefits...

Time Magazine

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

This might come as a surprise to you, but not everyone votes the way that they perceive will have greatest positive personal impact. There is such a thing as philanthrophy and altruism you know. If I vote left wing economically, it's not necessarily because I hope to reap the awards of greater benefits...

Andrew_83 wrote:

Right = bad, Left = good.

And the reason why I vote right of centre is because I think that's the best way to share resources. Growth and equity can be achieved. There's no reason why Right wealth creation policies cannot be used in tandem with left distribution policies.

europerson

These poor nurses would probably be paid a lot more, if the health service were privatised...

gilroyb

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

This might come as a surprise to you, but not everyone votes the way that they perceive will have greatest positive personal impact.

That does actually come as a surprise. You're saying people intentionally vote for their less prefered option in an election? I never said that it was defined simply in terms of money in ones pocket, but people don't make an effort to do things that they will in no way gain from. If someone personally values helping the homeless in Ireland or the poor in Africa, then they will support initiatives in these areas, but they support them because change in these areas cause a positive personal impact for the person themselves.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

If I vote left wing economically, it's not necessarily because I hope to reap the awards of greater benefits...

You do it because you hope NOT to reap the rewards of greater benifits? Remember reaping rewards includes not having your home broken into because the potential thief has recieved an education from the state, or social welfare to support their family. It doesn't have to be a tax deduction for you to personally receive greater benifits.

Andrew 83

europerson wrote:

These poor nurses would probably be paid a lot more, if the health service were privatised...

I don't know the details but I have never heard anything about nurses in the existing privatised hospitals being paid substantially more than those in the public hospitals.

While you may be just being provocative I feel I should say that privatising the health service would be a disaster. How many private companies (which would only be getting involved for money and if the pharmaceuticals companies are anything to go by are particularly nasty pieces of work) are going to facilitate the treatment of patients for free? Where are they going to get the money back from for all their costs with no taxes to pay for the hospitals? All health care should be free (the United States is the only country in the western world without universal free health care), privatising the health service would probably end free health care.

Danger Bob

Just noting how the re-introduction of fees came up earlier in the discussion. I was kinda wondering how long it would take for that to come up. I think that education is a place where a pure reliance on the economics of the market isn't too wise. I, for one, would have been unable to come to college without the free-fees initiative and all the talk of means-tested grants won't convince me that the return of an upfront fee paying system can ever work in Ireland again. While I understand the suggestion that grant bands would rise and allocations would rise too, I think that any means-tested system like this wil always have flaws and people will always slip through the cracks.

Geekishly enough, I've always had a bit of an inerest in education policy, (it comes from having teacher parents) and I've noticed a few other systems and how they work. Like a friend of mine from Holland told me that they have a system there where education is free and there's an allowance similar to the dole paid to all students. However, one of the more interesting set-ups in the world is one which an Irish taxi-driver who had worked in australia explained to me. He said that they add an extra tax of 1% on your earnings after finishing college but there are no fees in college. So, there's no crippling debt after finishing college and the government gains relative to what you gain. Apparently there was great opposition when it was introduced from people who were worried that you would be charged for your degree even if you didn't end up using it for employment but that raises th question of whether getting a degree which you don't plan to use is an abuse of the system. Just in case there are inaccuracies in what i've just said, I will remind you, I received this info from a fellow student and a taxi driver.

But it makes you think whether there are improvements that could be easily made to our system that would help the economy without screwing over the student.

However, I think we're missing the most valid point here...

Europerson wrote:

I was just in bed last night thinking about this.

Does anyone reckon Europerson needs a girlfriend?

gilroyb

Danger Bob wrote:

He said that they add an extra tax of 1% on your earnings after finishing college but there are no fees in college. So, there's no crippling debt after finishing college and the government gains relative to what you gain.

This system is very appealing, but the money can't be charged if the person is earning outside the country. Works best in a large country like the US or Australia, but in Ireland it would just encourage graduates to leave.

Andrew 83

gilroyb wrote:

This system is very appealing, but the money can't be charged if the person is earning outside the country. Works best in a large country like the US or Australia, but in Ireland it would just encourage graduates to leave.

Although I don't know enough about the system to comment fully I don't think a difference of 1% would be enough to swing people to leaving the country.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

gilroyb wrote:

You do it because you hope NOT to reap the rewards of greater benifits?

Sorry. I'm absolutely sincere here when I say that I'm having great difficulty believing that you're neither a trolling ****wit or a borderline retard. Just because I say that I don't do something with the intent of gaining some personal benefit, does not imply in the SLIGHTEST that I intend the reverse, it simply means that I have something else in mind, like, I don't know, the good of society as a whole?

gilroyb wrote:

That does actually come as a surprise. You're saying people intentionally vote for their less prefered option in an election? I never said that it was defined simply in terms of money in ones pocket, but people don't make an effort to do things that they will in no way gain from. If someone personally values helping the homeless in Ireland or the poor in Africa, then they will support initiatives in these areas, but they support them because change in these areas cause a positive personal impact for the person themselves.

For the first part of the paragraph, you're using the same bull**** logic. Refer above. As for the rest of it, that looks like some extreme massive cynicism you got going on there, coupled with a bit of Randroidism. And yeah, bg Randroids :[

europerson

Danger Bob wrote:

Does anyone reckon Europerson needs a girlfriend?

Good post (before the quoted bit). I agree with it.

And I have a girlfriend, but thanks for your concern, Rob.