Anyone PRO-fees?

20somethings

I really hate the fact that our SU and student population in general frown upon those who are pro-fees.

Is this the same SU who protests cutbacks like that Acting course?

No fees, no cutbacks? Can't have both....

Is there any group in TCD for Pro-Fees students? I don't want to be misrepresented by the barrage of smelly pseudo left wing students at the next protest.

20somethings

To add to this there's some protest going down Nassau street right now. What is it for? Seriously, gay. Enjoy the snow.

neonic75

is it lonely all the way up there on your pedestal?

godtabh

20somethings wrote: »

To add to this there's some protest going down Nassau street right now. What is it for? Seriously, gay. Enjoy the snow.

Taxis

devinejay

I'm kinda with you on this one. While I wouldn't say I'm pro fees, I just think that they're inevitable. The colleges are choked for funding and the government can't afford to give any more. People go on about what we need is education and the development of an educated workforce to bring us out of this slump but they don't realise that while fees suck for those not able to afford them, if we leave things the way they are the third level education standards will stagnate and Ireland will fall behind in the coveted educated workforce stakes. We are losing the battle of quality over quantity of degrees and it needs to be rectified.

Also it needn't be the end of the world for the everyman's education, if the government cuts it's funding for college fees by 50%, say, that's a huge benefit for them and there's no reason they couldn't use the remaining 50% to implement an effective scholarship scheme.

So basically in protest to everyone's automatic and generally knee-jerk style "no fees" stance, I'm not going to the protest. Anyone protest? Then head on over to the protest.:rolleyes:

PurpleFistMixer

Aye there's a fair few pro-fees people knocking about. Maybe you should start some right-wing society with which to express your views? Or join the young Fianna Fáil? ;p

devinejay

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Aye there's a fair few pro-fees people knocking about. Maybe you should start some right-wing society with which to express your views? Or join the young Fianna Fáil? ;p

Heh, I just had the image of the republican party in the simpsons flash into my head. I giggled in the library, but it's cool cause the sign says there's only fines for having your phone on. In the clear.:o

dan719

I'm pro fees. They are an economic necessity and also mean that students will more fully weigh up costs and benefits of going to college.

In terms of the SU, their stance on fees is simply unsustainable, by refusing to 'come to the table' they miss out on a chance to help design a fair fees system incorporating scholarships etc.

P.S Being pro fees doesn't necassarily imply that one is right wing!

JackKelly

I'm not pro fees, but I don't understand how people think that having the government pay for education is a right. Third level education is a privilege, and I can only imagine how much money is lost every year by students having a blaze attitude toward college, and leaving after half a year.
That said, I think a good go-between needs to be formed, maybe like the Australian system where students pay back the loan once they get a job earning X amount per year.

PurpleFistMixer

TimAy wrote: »

I'm not pro fees, but I don't understand how people think that having the government pay for education is a right.

It's an ideological thing. Somewhat like thinking free health care is a right, and whatnot.

smcfunnyface

I'd be pro-fee's for those that can well afford to pay, I believe thats the position of the government on this one? Coming from a working class background I was taken aback in first year at the amount of people in my class who had come thorough private schools, surely if thats an option for families then paying third level fees would be too? It may level out the playing field a little if it meant private secondary education wasn't as affordable when the less well off are no longer subsidising your kids education. It is a little unfair when you have people in less privileged areas with a very low level of third level participation paying for the people in well off areas to go to college, when their own kids have a low chance of making it there themselves. This may be a vast over simplification but really whats wrong with asking high earners to pay their own way, lets face it the money could be much better spent elsewhere like the public school system, revolutionary I know, just throwin it out there.

Kwekubo

How did the SU come to its current stance on fees (ie, complete opposition to any change to the status quo)? Was there a referendum?

tomcollins97

I wouldn’t be against fees. I suppose it is just something people will have to think about when they are deciding how many kids to have – can they afford them? If fees are set at, for example, 3.5k for 4 years it would mean parents putting away €775 a year from 0-18. It may mean holidays or other luxury’s may have to be sacrificed but that is what it is to be a parent!

devinejay

How did the SU come to its current stance on fees (ie, complete opposition to any change to the status quo)? Was there a referendum?

It seems to me like they are just choosing the popular front. Fees are bad pretty much sums up their argument, or at least what I have heard of it. We get ridiculed for being pro-fees, dubbed Fiana Fáil-ers. The SU's apparent popularity based (vote-mongering?) tactics go unscathed? It doesn't seem right to me.

I would be pro fees on condition that there exists the facility for those who are unable to afford them to get funding.

Something along the lines of long term, low interest loans conditional on employment or fees paid back through a scaled tax system.

One advantage of the US system is that there is more of culture of philanthropy and there exists a large pool of alumni who are willing to partially fund students in the system. I was talking to a person who was in fees office of Boston College and she mentioned how over 60% of students got funding of some description. However, we don't have the same levels of philanthropy here (although we quite generous as EU nations go) and nor do we have the same tax benefits for people who donate to charities as they do in the states.

To sum up, I would support an introduction of fees providing a worked out system of funding was available.

Jonathan

I dont know how the SU thinks it is fair for our fees to be paid for by national debt.

Prof.Badass

The biggest mistake people are making is assuming that parents will pay. Why should it be based on your parents income??? most people seem to aggree you'll pay it off on a loan. so basically you get punished because your PARENTS have money and still have to pay off all the money yourself. hardly seems fair if you ask me.

If you want fees re-introduced, fair enough. If you don't that's also fine. What isn't fine is these idiots saying "only people with a certain amount of money should pay". This is completly unfair and goes against the principles of democracy.

If i was a well off parent (and we're not talking rich here) whose hard-earned money is paying for a service for other peoples children, then my own children are entitled to avail of this service, seeing as i am paying way more towards this service than the other parents. This only seems fair.

A half-assed approach to fees is nothing short of discrimination.


btw, personally i'm against fees. However i recognise that there may come a stage when free 3rd level is no longer feasible. However, before free 3rd level is abolished there's fúck-loads of other less important stuff that should to go first.

EGaffney

@OP: Yeah, absolutely. Since Ireland has one of the top 5 highest participation rates in third level in the OECD, and also the highest rate of private financial return to third level education in the OECD (14% - better than any financial asset at the moment), it's shocking that students pay next to nothing to get their education, which they then profit greatly out of.

lucernarian

Nicely said Vinylmesh.

The last time I checked, I thought the idea of a meritocracy was one society held highly. Whatever happens, fees should not go down the road of further penalising the people who have parents earning over 50k or whatever the income band for half-fees is currently. Not all of those people went to private schooling;)

I can understand the idea of the disadvantaged being assisted so that they have the chance of benefiting from 3rd level education (the local authority grants etc). But once everyone can sustain themselves somewhat while in college, why should someone's background then mean they owe the state more or less for being there in the first place?? Certainly, if fees were to be paid after the degree (Graduate tax, govt-to-student loans etc) then there is absolutely no reason why your parent's bloody income should be considered.

I think the arguments for fees are being lost in a sea of "class struggle" and victimisation against silly suggestions to fix the problems for funding colleges. If education is to be seen as the investment that it is, it's worthwhile to fund it through credit, from both the students' and Govt. point of view. I apologise if this sounds kinda vague, I'm too tired to elaborate currently!

smcfunnyface

I think the idea is to encourage participation, children of the well off will get an education regardless, other will be even less likely if they'll be saddled with depth. The pay back to society is communities becoming less isolated, having more control over their future ad so more likely to participate in a constructive way. One child heading to college can show the alternative choices to people around them making them more likely to consider further education. I believe this is what the government is proposing anyway? Isn't it how its supposed to work the well off help out the weaker members so they in turn can contribute. From what I've seen so far the talk has been about a cut-off income band for free-fees rather than a loans system people have been suggesting, although I can see the benefits of this it doesn't see to be whats on the cards, or can someone correct me on this? It isn't a call to class warfare or anything just the reality of the situation.

Cantab.

vinylmesh wrote: »

...
nothing short of discrimination.
...

Would you ever cop yourself on.

Jonathan

To be honest, i dont think many realise the seriousness of the the situation we are in..

Have a read here...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055463133

fiveone

Problem could be solved if the rich paid more tax.

God forbid.

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

Problem could be solved if the rich paid more tax.

God forbid.

Oh the fallacy of the infinite funds of the rich. No, the problem isn't that easily solved.

For what it's worth, I'd greatly support a significantly higher tax for the well-off. (Incidentally, so do most economists.) But the scale of the problem is so large that higher taxes on the wealthy just won't be enough.

Besides, we live in a republic and our votes aren't socialist. It's really quite undemocratic to assert that the problem should be fixed in the manner you propose. And of course by undemocratic, I mean unsustainable - the electorate will simply vote for whoever offers lower taxes next time round.

neonic75

Sorry to be the voice of reason here on this one but in the current climate it is more important now than ever before to ensure free education. Ireland just cannot compete on the global market the way it used to. Our labour is not cheap and or workforce while skilled is not highley educated. Now more than ever before we need to ensure that our workforce is highly educated in order to attract high tech induustry. Take dell Vs. Intel. Dell left and intel stayed. Dell Left because looking at the figures they could output the same product in poland with a substantial saving. Dell (incase you have your head under a rock) manufactures computers. Intel on the other hand develops chips, motherboards and processors. This is the sort of industy we need to attract but in order to do this we need the highly skilled highly educated workforce so tha industry simple cannot find staff abroad. Keep 3rd level fees's out of Ireland! (unless of course your doing a meaningless course like arts)

EGaffney

Check the post above. The problem isn't some vague notion of competitiveness. The problem is that the country has no money, right now, and we need it.

The bigotry shown by some respondents here against arts subjects betrays their selfish, rather than moral, analysis of the issue of fees; I'm going to assume that they study something like computer science (a field where jobs are easily transferable to India BTW).

neonic75

ok fair enough. I'll retract the comment about the art students but I will not retract the statment about remaining in a society with free education. I am well aware that the country needs money but removing grants for fees simply removes the investment in future generations. I wouldnt have been able to attend college without free fee's even though I may have come in above the threshold. And I know alot of people in the same boat.

neonic75

neonic75 wrote: »

ok fair enough. I'll retract the comment about the art students but I will not retract the statment about remaining in a society with free education. I am well aware that the country needs money but removing grants for fees simply removes the investment in future generations. I wouldnt have been able to attend college without free fee's even though I may have come in above the threshold. And I know alot of people in the same boat.

No, it remove Government investment in education.
A proper credit system would see private credit take its place, which means that everyone is better off as it reduce the burdern of a government trying to pay off a 20bn euro annual deficit.

Also, (not directed at person I am quoting) please don't confuse the issue of the grant and fees. The grant is meant to support a person during their college time, to make sure that they can afford to attend college. Fees are another matter and if grant money is transferred to fee payment, that is a very bad situation as then you are reducing the ability of people to attend college.

Time Magazine

neonic75 wrote: »

I am well aware that the country needs money but removing grants for fees simply removes the investment in future generations.

Okay.

We have a budget deficit of €16,000 per household facing us. What do you suggest we cut?

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

Oh the fallacy of the infinite funds of the rich. No, the problem isn't that easily solved.

For what it's worth, I'd greatly support a significantly higher tax for the well-off. (Incidentally, so do most economists.) But the scale of the problem is so large that higher taxes on the wealthy just won't be enough.

Besides, we live in a republic and our votes aren't socialist. It's really quite undemocratic to assert that the problem should be fixed in the manner you propose. And of course by undemocratic, I mean unsustainable - the electorate will simply vote for whoever offers lower taxes next time round.

No, but we're in this situation because of deregulation. Taxes won't solve the problem now, but it would have.

Frankly, since the electorate are too greedy and short sighted to have a couple of per-cent shaved off their income, especially the rich, they deserve everything they get for the next couple of years.

And students shouldn't have to bear the brunt of this.

edit: not that half of them are even aware of the economic policy of the party they're voting for.

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

No, but we're in this situation because of deregulation. Taxes won't solve the problem now, but it would have.

You're just wrong here. Deregulation of what? European monetary union? The housing sector? The US financial system? With its history of bailouts, government agencies and intervention?

Blaming deregulation isn't simply idiotically naive, it's just wrong. Bubbles occur in highly-regulated industries as well as those where there are none. They occur regularly and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

Blaming deregulation is..... just, no.

Frankly, since the electorate are too greedy and short sighted to have a couple of per-cent shaved off their income, especially the rich, they deserve everything they get for the next couple of years.

Do you really think "a couple of per-cent" will do it?

And students shouldn't have to bear the brunt of this.

There's "should" and there's "what we can afford". Seriously, who do you suggest takes the fall? I'll need 19 billion suggestions.

edit: not that half of them are even aware of the economic policy of the party they're voting for.

If you think a 2% increase in the higher tax-band will do anything for this deficit, you are not one to talk about being aware of economic policies.

Prof.Badass

The Economist wrote: »

There's "should" and there's "what we can afford". Seriously, who do you suggest takes the fall? I'll need 19 billion suggestions.

sorry to be such a pedant but each suggestion would yield more than €1. And another thing, who says we need an evenly balanced budget?

1. Rise in income tax (particularly the higher tax band)
2. Serious public sector reforms.
3.serious reduction in the pay/expenditure of politicians and state representatives.
4.Cancellation of metro north and all non-essential development projects.
5.Removal of state funding from private schools.

This is only a short list coz i'm lazy and have a life to live, I could easily make it far longer given the time.

there's loads of places where spending can be cut that have a lesser priority than 3rd level education.

-EDIT.

sensationalism much? metro north is set to cost €5b alone. how much does free 3rd level cost?

€2b! that's how much.

Fuck all when you consider the grand scheme of things.


hmmmmm...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

You're just wrong here. Deregulation of what? European monetary union? The housing sector? The US financial system? With its history of bailouts, government agencies and intervention?

Blaming deregulation isn't simply idiotically naive, it's just wrong. Bubbles occur in highly-regulated industries as well as those where there are none. They occur regularly and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

Your condescension is really charming, wipe that spittle off your suit there chap. Intervention in the US was done merely to counteract a market that has now clearly spiralled out of control, which we're only beginning to see the consequences of. "Bailouts" are merely necessary steps undertaken when the **** hits the fan. This is not regulation of industry, but rather a lubrication of deregulatised institutions.

Bubbles might occur in highly-regulated industries, but I'll wager they're not nearly as severe as ours. The Irish property bubble was clearly exacerbated by fianna fail's policies, and our very dependancy on it highlights a clear short sightedness. Of course, the Irish government has no real power in terms of what it can and can't do in terms of regulation given its dependance on global markets, but shunning a common EU taxation policy was yet another act of stupidity and greed when a global regulation system is precisely what's needed.

The Economist wrote: »

Do you really think "a couple of per-cent" will do it?
There's "should" and there's "what we can afford". Seriously, who do you suggest takes the fall? I'll need 19 billion suggestions.
If you think a 2% increase in the higher tax-band will do anything for this deficit, you are not one to talk about being aware of economic policies.

A higher tax rate would have prevented exorbitant spending, its not merely monetary. Two per cent is what it comes down to in elections, but actually I never mentioned the figure "two," I would be thinking more like ten, as well as higher property taxation for second homes etc.

It's about the difference between "want" and "need." The people who take the fall should be the people who caused it - the people with power and money in financial institutions, of whose scandals we hear more of every day.

If you're looking to me for solutions, I don't have any, but then I didn't cause this. People like you did: people who think they can simply remove the human element from economic calculations. Bubbles cannot be avoided, but they can be controlled to a greater extent, and furthermore they can be averted. Economists in fact predicted this situation in Ireland years ago.

Asking students to pay fees will only lead to more fees, and if the government needs money they should collectively bite the bullet and ask for higher taxes instead of implementing localised stealth taxes like these.

Now take a deep breath and count to ten before you reply.

Jonathan

Simple fact is that the government cannot afford to pay your fees.

To be honest it doesn't matter what you think anyways.. You are all paying fees in one form or another whether you like it or not.

Personally i'd prefer to get a loan now and pay back a loan myself, rather than my future tax revenue paying off my fees plus the accumulated interest on the national debt.

What about you? Are you happy to sit back and watch Ireland's sovereign debt rating be devalued?

EGaffney

Yeah. Add to that analysis that many of the students who the anti-fees crowd are crowing on about - the "creators of future prosperity" and all that - will be gone to better countries the minute they get their degrees in their hands. Further reducing the tax base from which we can obtain that revenue.

lydonst wrote:

Your condescension is really charming, wipe that spittle off your suit there chap. Intervention in the US was done merely to counteract a market that has now clearly spiralled out of control, which we're only beginning to see the consequences of. "Bailouts" are merely necessary steps undertaken when the **** hits the fan. This is not regulation of industry, but rather a lubrication of deregulatised institutions.

Bubbles might occur in highly-regulated industries, but I'll wager they're not nearly as severe as ours. The Irish property bubble was clearly exacerbated by fianna fail's policies, and our very dependancy on it highlights a clear short sightedness. Of course, the Irish government has no real power in terms of what it can and can't do in terms of regulation given its dependance on global markets, but shunning a common EU taxation policy was yet another act of stupidity and greed when a global regulation system is precisely what's needed.

That's still very naive. Identify a regulation, please, that would have prevented everything that has happened so far in the financial markets. A policy that exascerbated the property bubble would be nice also. Common EU taxation would wipe out our one largest advantage as a relatively disadvantage island nation in the EU, but what does that matter if it offend leftist dogma, I suppose.

A higher tax rate would have prevented exorbitant spending, its not merely monetary. Two per cent is what it comes down to in elections, but actually I never mentioned the figure "two," I would be thinking more like ten, as well as higher property taxation for second homes etc.

Show the room how "exorbitant spending" caused the crisis. Do you mean cheap credit, maybe? Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with tax rates.

It's about the difference between "want" and "need." The people who take the fall should be the people who caused it - the people with power and money in financial institutions, of whose scandals we hear more of every day.

The individuals have already lost millions in net worth. Problematically, the institutions are difficult to punish without sending the whole system under. Only the most dogmatic libertarian or revolutionary socialist would welcome the destruction of many banks at this stage.

If you're looking to me for solutions, I don't have any, but then I didn't cause this. People like you did: people who think they can simply remove the human element from economic calculations. Bubbles cannot be avoided, but they can be controlled to a greater extent, and furthermore they can be averted. Economists in fact predicted this situation in Ireland years ago.

You are clearly not aware what economics is. It is about people. Do read up on mainstream views of economics before responding (i.e. not internet leftist views).

Asking students to pay fees will only lead to more fees, and if the government needs money they should collectively bite the bullet and ask for higher taxes instead of implementing localised stealth taxes like these.

So it doesn't matter what the rest of the country has to suffer through as long as a few mostly middle-class young people get to drink themselves silly every weekend, because they don't have to bear the real cost of their education, a huge financial benefit to them, which shall be paid for by PAYE workers.

snappieT

I really don't believe in free fees, and I believe that the taxes to pay for said free fees need to be reduced. Sure I'm getting my free education, but how many people are doing "English Lit & Psycology" from my parent's taxes?

I'd be fine with the government providing education with no upfront cost, then charging a tax supplement on the students that benefited until they pay the cost off. Those that benefit from education will pay it off, and neither Joe Millionaire, nor Mr. 20k a year will have to fund them.

Pay yourself through.

tolosenc

vinylmesh wrote: »

1. Rise in income tax (particularly the higher tax band)

How about a dramatic cut in taxes at all levels so that 3rd level education can be more affordable?

vinylmesh wrote: »

2. Serious public sector reforms.
3.serious reduction in the pay/expenditure of politicians and state representatives.
...
5.Removal of state funding from private schools.

Here, here

vinylmesh wrote: »

there's loads of places where spending can be cut that have a lesser priority than 3rd level education.

Like primary schools, hospitals, public transport.

How exactly is the Metro North non-essential? That's off topic, go there at your own risk...

vinylmesh wrote: »

Fuck all when you consider the grand scheme of things.

But the amount that government SHOULD be paying is more in the region of 7bn euros. I mean, there has been absolutely zero increase in the sum universities receive since the intrduction of the fees-remission scheme. 10 years of boom-time inflation and not 2 cents more? That's a joke.


EDIT: I will only support a fees system which treats everyone equally, no seperate treatment for rich and poor. It must also be that fees are completely untaxed, with all the desperately needed money going directly to the college.

My point about treating everyone equally is this (assuming it is people's parents paying for them) - My dad took out a loan and worked 4/5 nights a week when studying as well as 2 jobs during the summer to afford college. He then left college and headed into the private sector where he worked his ass off from the bottom right up to where he is today. He had a stress induced heart-attack a few years ago, but is now in a slow paced managerial position at an investment firm, earning 6 figures. Why should he be expected to fork out for my education, when someone who left school at 14 and has drawn the dole ever since isn't expected to pay a penny? Penalising the hard-working, money-concious members of society in favour of those more lazy and less frugal is beyond a joke.

fiveone

EGaffney wrote: »

That's still very naive. Identify a regulation, please, that would have prevented everything that has happened so far in the financial markets. A policy that exascerbated the property bubble would be nice also. Common EU taxation would wipe out our one largest advantage as a relatively disadvantage island nation in the EU, but what does that matter if it offend leftist dogma, I suppose.

Stricter criteria for mortgage loans, and limiting the profit motive of financial institutions. Common EU taxation would be a step towards this. As it stands, a globalised market is practically impossible to regulate, hence it forcing our tax rate (and minimum wage) down.

How good is our advantage now, might I ask? Is it appropriate to mention Iceland here?

Likewise, its not so much what Fianna Fail did but didn't do with regard to the housing market - this applies to adequately limiting the number of houses built, implementing stricter planning permission with regard to housing quality, location, and infrastructure. Cut your crap about dogma. That's a nasty little rhetorical habit you guys seem to have. Debate much?

EGaffney wrote: »

Show the room how "exorbitant spending" caused the crisis. Do you mean cheap credit, maybe? Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with tax rates.

Spending beyond means, on credit. I think that's fairly obvious. Lower tax rates encourage people to spend more, and furthermore add fuel to the competetive market of financial institutions which are compelled to issue dodgy loans.

EGaffney wrote: »

The individuals have already lost millions in net worth. Problematically, the institutions are difficult to punish without sending the whole system under. Only the most dogmatic libertarian or revolutionary socialist would welcome the destruction of many banks at this stage.

You are clearly not aware what economics is. It is about people. Do read up on mainstream views of economics before responding (i.e. not internet leftist views).

Individuals need to be punished, institutions need to be regulated. Who mentioned destruction? Surely you're not stooping to misrepresent what I said? Oh ok, I see you jumped to your own conclusion.

EGaffney wrote: »

So it doesn't matter what the rest of the country has to suffer through as long as a few mostly middle-class young people get to drink themselves silly every weekend, because they don't have to bear the real cost of their education, a huge financial benefit to them, which shall be paid for by PAYE workers.

Perhaps college should be tougher on miscreants, I grant you. Education should probably be merit based, but in order for that to happen fairly you need public access to secondary education, which private schools undermine. Anyway, not every student behaves like that, and in fact I know far more working people who plaster themselves with drink every weekend. But lets not start stereotyping...

Jonathan

lydonst wrote: »

Stricter criteria for mortgage loans, and limiting the profit motive of financial institutions. Common EU taxation would be a step towards this. As it stands, a globalised market is practically impossible to regulate, hence it forcing our tax rate (and minimum wage) down.

Gotcha.... increase the rate of corporation tax to the EU levels on an small overpriced island such as Ireland.


Good one.

EGaffney

I really couldn't care less about making personal insults, but there is some seriously incorrect economics going on here.

lydonst wrote:

Stricter criteria for mortgage loans, and limiting the profit motive of financial institutions. Common EU taxation would be a step towards this. As it stands, a globalised market is practically impossible to regulate, hence it forcing our tax rate (and minimum wage) down.

That's very vague. Would you have lent money to a Dell employee if you were a bank? I certainly would have, but that looks foolish now. That would have been prudent in the United States, where the governments encouraged racial lending policies, but it's got little to do with Ireland. Without the profit motive, who will want to sustain their existence? Competitive tax rates are good because government regulation tends to mess things up on a more sustained basis than markets do.

How good is our advantage now, might I ask? Is it appropriate to mention Iceland here?

Yes, it is. Without huge public sector cutbacks, the international markets will have as much confidence in us as they do in Iceland. Good if you're a Green-Left type, but bad for everyone else.

Likewise, its not so much what Fianna Fail did but didn't do with regard to the housing market - this applies to adequately limiting the number of houses built, implementing stricter planning permission with regard to housing quality, location, and infrastructure.

It would not have been politically feasible to limit housing construction without significant problems among our growing population. We also have a low housing stock compared to the rest of the EU, which is surprising, but not if you bear in mind the low levels of investment due to poverty after independence. So it's not evident that there is an over-supply problem in the market, but there is a certainly problem of frustrated demand (i.e. credit crunch).

Spending beyond means, on credit. I think that's fairly obvious. Lower tax rates encourage people to spend more, and furthermore add fuel to the competetive market of financial institutions which are compelled to issue dodgy loans.

The major problems with credit are to do with construction/housing/mortgages, so increased tax rates wouldn't have changed that all that much. The last part, about fuel and markets and all that, doesn't make sense.

Individuals need to be punished, institutions need to be regulated. Who mentioned destruction? Surely you're not stooping to misrepresent what I said? Oh ok, I see you jumped to your own conclusion.

Destruction was the alternative to the bailout. e.g. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, because financial institutions could not have survived without very generous terms.

Perhaps college should be tougher on miscreants, I grant you. Education should probably be merit based, but in order for that to happen fairly you need public access to secondary education, which private schools undermine. Anyway, not every student behaves like that, and in fact I know far more working people who plaster themselves with drink every weekend. But lets not start stereotyping...

The problem starts at primary level, where lots of the kids don't learn to read properly, and where much of the time nowadays in particular is spent on teaching English as a foreign language to some of the kids. Access to third-level education, which is realistically unnecessary for most people, ought to be based on a free agreement between the student and the institution.

shay_562

snappieT wrote: »

Sure I'm getting my free education, but how many people are doing "English Lit & Psycology" from my parent's taxes?

You (and others) keep saying this and it keeps pissing me off. Why, if you use your CS degree to go and programme video games, are you contributing any more to society than an English Lit & Psychology student who chooses to get an ICAI qualification (most accounting firms *love* psychology students, who tend to be smart, competitive and analytical) and then use that knowledge and experience to work in the Dept. of Finace in some socially 'useful' capacity? Why do you think it's valid for you to criticise everyone who does an arts subject in such a blanket way even though there's no guarantee that people who do science or computer-based subject won't end up working in Xtra Vision? Pull your head out of your ass, stop assuming that you and your classmates are in some way better contributors to society and less undeserving of free education than arts students, and stop making snide, bitchy little asides about people that you don't think are as good as you.

4Xcut

smcfunnyface wrote: »

I'd be pro-fee's for those that can well afford to pay, I believe thats the position of the government on this one? Coming from a working class background I was taken aback in first year at the amount of people in my class who had come thorough private schools, surely if thats an option for families then paying third level fees would be too? It may level out the playing field a little if it meant private secondary education wasn't as affordable when the less well off are no longer subsidising your kids education. It is a little unfair when you have people in less privileged areas with a very low level of third level participation paying for the people in well off areas to go to college, when their own kids have a low chance of making it there themselves. This may be a vast over simplification but really whats wrong with asking high earners to pay their own way, lets face it the money could be much better spent elsewhere like the public school system, revolutionary I know, just throwin it out there.

Consider 2 families. One high earning and one low earning. Your stance, as far as I read, is that the students from the high earning family should pay for third level education, as they have more money and can afford it. However, the higher earning family already pay higher tax. Assuming that the tax system is designed to be fair(not getting into the debate on tax), the higher earners are already contributing more to the exchequer than the lower earners. In fact depending on the difference in earnings, the higher earners could be paying for the lower earners education as well.

I just think that if the tax system is supposedly fair, then education should be free for everyone or not free for everyone, but not some free and some pay. If it's some free and some not free, then it's a blatant admission that the tax system is inequitable. If this is the case, then this should be being addressed at the moment too.

lilmizzme

I'm kinda of on the fence here, I'm pro-fees as long as when the fees are brought in, conditions come with it. I agree that those that can afford it should pay for college, while those that can't afford it should be offered grants, loans etc. I can't understand how the students that have gone to private fee paying secondary schools can stand outside and protest fees for college. It was my parents tax paying money that paid for the teachers in those secondary schools, and it was those schools that made it harder for me to get a place in my course by pushing up the points. Why all of a sudden, is it so wrong to keep paying for an education, if they've been doing ok for the last 6 years?
Also, I'm not having a go at high earning families, they've worked hard to get there and I can appreciate that, they deserve what they have. But I simply belive if they can afford it, they should pay for it.

And also, snappieT, get off your high horse and stop being such a snob...arts students can contribute just as much to society as a CS student can...chances are you'll go abroad and work anyways, thereby contributing nothing. Also, arts degrees offer a fairly unlimited career choice, so your English Lit and Psychology student could end up being a lawyer, child psychologist, teacher, lecturer, social worker, journalist....are they all useless to society and the economy?

neonic75

shay_562 wrote: »

Why do you think it's valid for you to criticise everyone who does an arts subject in such a blanket way even though there's no guarantee that people who do science or computer-based subject won't end up working in Xtra Vision?

Because of the beautiful reaction we get each and every time

j1smithy

Of course fees should be reintroduced. It will help keep the riff-raff out.

fiveone

EGaffney wrote: »

Would you have lent money to a Dell employee if you were a bank? I certainly would have, but that looks foolish now. That would have been prudent in the United States, where the governments encouraged racial lending policies, but it's got little to do with Ireland. Without the profit motive, who will want to sustain their existence? Competitive tax rates are good because government regulation tends to mess things up on a more sustained basis than markets do.

Dell isn't an appropriate example, there were clearly more extreme cases in the US where the banking sector is more competetive. Governments would want to sustain their existence not only in the interests of the people but also with a regulated and relaxed profit motive. Less competition means less risks are taken on dodgy loans.

EGaffney wrote: »

The major problems with credit are to do with construction/housing/mortgages, so increased tax rates wouldn't have changed that all that much. The last part, about fuel and markets and all that, doesn't make sense.

Regulation falls under taxation, but not exclusively so. No, it wouldn't make sense if you read "fuel" literally - in a competetive market, of course banks are going to take more risks than is wise or necessary. If you limit this market influence, or even regulate the banks completely, this dangerous market influence largely dissapears, or can at least be controlled far more effectively.

EGaffney wrote: »

Destruction was the alternative to the bailout. e.g. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, because financial institutions could not have survived without very generous terms.

Yes, but bailout should have meant nationalisation.

EGaffney wrote: »

It would not have been politically feasible to limit housing construction without significant problems among our growing population. We also have a low housing stock compared to the rest of the EU, which is surprising, but not if you bear in mind the low levels of investment due to poverty after independence. So it's not evident that there is an over-supply problem in the market, but there is a certainly problem of frustrated demand (i.e. credit crunch).

This argument is a mask for unwillingness to interfere in the market. The problem of high demand is anecdotally untrue just by looking at the amount of empty housing constructions around Ireland, and this is not just because people simply cannot afford them: the property boom did not stem for the government's concern for the population at large, but rather the large amount of money that lay in property development, which led to supply now exceding demand. This is further shown by the total lack of regulation in housing standards, infrastrucure, and lack of adequate taxation for second homes. Whatever problems that may have stemmed from "over population" are in any case totally and utterly exacerbated now, and therefore this policy was a failure in terms of social benefit (which is what you're arguing, here at least).

20somethings

The head of the USI said that fees shouldn't be brought back because Waterford Crystal and Dell employees need to re-train themselves.

HMMMMMMM, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO PAY FEES ANYWAY!?

TheAmateur

20somethings wrote: »

The head of the USI said that fees shouldn't be brought back because Waterford Crystal and Dell employees need to re-train themselves.

HMMMMMMM, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO PAY FEES ANYWAY!?

not if it's their first degree.

snappieT

shay_562 wrote: »

You (and others) keep saying this and it keeps pissing me off. Why, if you use your CS degree to go and programme video games, are you contributing any more to society than an English Lit & Psychology student who chooses to get an ICAI qualification (most accounting firms *love* psychology students, who tend to be smart, competitive and analytical) and then use that knowledge and experience to work in the Dept. of Finace in some socially 'useful' capacity?

I'm not applying more worth to a CS degree, I just happen to think English Lit & Psychology doesn't have much relevance in today's society. I understand that it means you were smart enough and have a sufficiently analytical mind to get through college, but the same goes for any course, you might as well have a usable skill at the end of it, as engineers, doctors and CS students do. Regardless, I don't think engineers, doctors or CS students should have their way paved for them either.

shay_562 wrote:

Why do you think it's valid for you to criticise everyone who does an arts subject in such a blanket way even though there's no guarantee that people who do science or computer-based subject won't end up working in Xtra Vision?

I'm criticising everyone, not singling out arts students. This criticism includes myself. Fact is you wouldn't do a course that wouldn't put you in a better position if you had to pay up. I use an arts course simply as an example.

shay_562 wrote:

Pull your head out of your ass, stop assuming that you and your classmates are in some way better contributors to society and less undeserving of free education than arts students, and stop making snide, bitchy little asides about people that you don't think are as good as you

I never said I'm better than anyone. I don't think anyone should get free education. I clearly said this in my last post.

lilmizzme wrote:

And also, snappieT, get off your high horse and stop being such a snob...arts students can contribute just as much to society as a CS student can...chances are you'll go abroad and work anyways, thereby contributing nothing.

You're absolutely right, I intend to leave. I don't think people should be able to do that: get their free education and feck off - but that's the way it is.

lilmizzme wrote:

Also, arts degrees offer a fairly unlimited career choice, so your English Lit and Psychology student could end up being a lawyer, child psychologist, teacher, lecturer, social worker, journalist....are they all useless to society and the economy?

I too could end up being a lawyer, teacher, lecturer, social worker, journalist etc. The only thing in that list I couldn't do is child psychologist. Instead I can be a software engineer.


I cannot make this clear enough: I don't think CS is any better than any other course. I don't think CS students should be paid for, nor any other students.

Brian

Free fees is all a scam; the longer you stay in the country, the greater the chance you meet some chick that you'll marry and end up staying here. Nasty, scheming government tactics.

Jonathan

Baza210 wrote: »

Free fees is all a scam; the longer you stay in the country, the greater the chance you meet some chick that you'll marry and end up staying here. Nasty, scheming government tactics.

Narrow minded attitudes like that disappoint me.