Introduction of fees seemingly imminent

electriks

Unno what, the people saying that we're not the first to have to pay fees are dead right, and this cock-up is the governments fault because when in Ireland's history was the country that prosperous??? In a matter of months it disentigrated to to the elderly flooding the streets because they were being deprived their rights and now students forced to line up for grants and grovel to be in with a chance of going to college.

We are getting a raw deal. Why shouldn't we benefit from access grants and such????
Personally, I'm clean broke and didn't bother my arse with the leaving because i didn't think I'd be able to afford college without coming out with a €15000+ loan and now fees on top of it???

And the most pathetic part is i was turned down for the Access grant and had to get a TD to appeal it for me. they made up some riduculous reason in the letter they sent me for not giving it to me and i wasn't the only one who got turned down that deserved it.

I'm sorry but i am going to take all the help i can get and fight for those grants as is everyone else that thinks this is an utter injustice.
You wanna complain that we're acting spoilt after benefiting from the celtic tiger or that we should shut up and just accept it........................
Then what can i say??????? Screw you!!!!!

sorry bout the rant but having to get TD's to get you some money to get into college is seriously pissing off!!!!

sock puppet

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Did I say that was right?


We did, before the abolition of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, but thats a whole different story.

I hope to go and do something like that, the townships in South Africa being my particular place that I wish to visit/help



If we are to have any way out of this mess, It's via education. While my earlier post may have been seen as rather selfish, admittedly taxing going to college will not help things. A 3rd band of tax at ~60% and an increase of the higher rate of tax to 45-46% would be much fairer, as we still would be paying for our education when we actually started making money, and not having the mountain of debt inflicted upon us by FF.

60% tax:eek:. What on earth would be the incentive to earn money then? We already have a 48 percent top rate effectively. I'd much prefer to pay off a loan/pay some extra tax for a few years.

And how do you know we will pay for the governments mistakes? By the time you leave college the recession could be over and you might be able to get a job straight out of college. Someone in their 50's who has just been layed off is in a much worse position. I won't be happy about paying for college but we're hardly the unlucky ones.

We

croker1 wrote: »

have you ever thought of the people who might not be able to afford the fees??? its all well and good you saying your in favour of it when you obviously have the money to pay it.... what about those who dont....

Obviously you didnt read the article...

How could you possibly predict whether or not you will be able to afford it after you have graduated? Or is it your intent to stay at a shít paying job for the rest of your life?

Piste

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy. If the graduate tax comes in it means that only those who benefit from the education should pay for it. Instead of our parents paying our fees we'll pay for our own education regardless of socio-economic backgrounds- as it should be.

SligoBrewer

sock puppet wrote: »

60% tax:eek:. What on earth would be the incentive to earn money then? We already have a 48 percent top rate effectively. I'd much prefer to pay off a loan/pay some extra tax for a few years.

It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000. O noes! Tax the rich! What about my Porsche? If I was in a 60% tax band, paying at the highest rate possible, I'd be more than happy to pay, as it would mean that I would have a standard of living that was very comfortable indeed.

sock puppet wrote: »

And how do you know we will pay for the governments mistakes? By the time you leave college the recession could be over and you might be able to get a job straight out of college.

This self inflicted "situation" we are in is now a depression. The 30's or 80's didnt finish in 5 years, and now this is up there amongst those "situations".

SligoBrewer

Piste wrote: »

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy. If the graduate tax comes in it means that only those who benefit from the education should pay for it. Instead of our parents paying our fees we'll pay for our own education regardless of socio-economic backgrounds- as it should be.

This tax is and should be income tax Piste. As those with 3rd level education will be earning on average far more than those with out 3rd level education. What about the thirteen years of people who have gone through without paying a graduate tax? I'll pay for my education via income tax, as it's by the far the fairest way to tax an economy.

Agent J

Piste wrote: »

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy. If the graduate tax comes in it means that only those who benefit from the education should pay for it. Instead of our parents paying our fees we'll pay for our own education regardless of socio-economic backgrounds- as it should be.

Yeah. Never going to happen. Its a nice ideal but take a look at the government.

They wont ring fence a graduate tax and besides people already pay the higher rate of tax anywau.

sock puppet

SligoBrewer wrote: »

It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000. O noes! Tax the rich! What about my Porsche? If I was in a 60% tax band, paying at the highest rate possible, I'd be more than happy to pay, as it would mean that I would have a standard of living that was very comfortable indeed.



This self inflicted "situation" we are in is now a depression. The 30's or 80's didnt finish in 5 years, and now this is up there amongst those "situations".

That's not my point. Say if the income threshold is 150,000. What incentive is there to earn above that if you're only going to be able to keep a small portion of it?

The 30's or 80's in which country? Ireland wasn't too badly affected by the Great Depression as opposed to industrialised countries. And while problems remained the Depression did end within 5 years.

KnifeWRENCH

electriks wrote: »

Unno what, the people saying that we're not the first to have to pay fees are dead right, and this cock-up is the governments fault because when in Ireland's history was the country that prosperous??? In a matter of months it disentigrated to to the elderly flooding the streets because they were being deprived their rights and now students forced to line up for grants and grovel to be in with a chance of going to college.

Off topic, but the elderly were never denied their rights. Only elderly people who could actually afford medical care would have had their cards taken off them, yet people insisted on making a huge deal about it.
The Government should never have made a U-turn on that decision imo.

We are getting a raw deal. Why shouldn't we benefit from access grants and such????
Personally, I'm clean broke and didn't bother my arse with the leaving because i didn't think I'd be able to afford college without coming out with a €15000+ loan and now fees on top of it???

I'm sorry but if you didn't bother your arse with the Leaving then perhaps you don't deserve to go to college. :rolleyes: You should give 100% to your Leaving Cert regardless of what you plan to do afterwards. It's not the be all and end all certainly but it's still a very important exam.

And the most pathetic part is i was turned down for the Access grant and had to get a TD to appeal it for me. they made up some riduculous reason in the letter they sent me for not giving it to me and i wasn't the only one who got turned down that deserved it.

In fairness to the Access people, their funding has been cut a lot in the past couple of years. I entered college through the HEAR route two years ago and they can't afford to give everyone who registered the same financial support. They have probably had to be much more stringent with the application criteria this year, which is why you and others lost out this year when you probably would have qualified any other year.
Although I must say fair play to you for taking the initiative to go to your local TD.

Fighting Irish

electriks wrote: »

Unno what, the people saying that we're not the first to have to pay fees are dead right, and this cock-up is the governments fault because when in Ireland's history was the country that prosperous??? In a matter of months it disentigrated to to the elderly flooding the streets because they were being deprived their rights and now students forced to line up for grants and grovel to be in with a chance of going to college.

We are getting a raw deal. Why shouldn't we benefit from access grants and such????
Personally, I'm clean broke and didn't bother my arse with the leaving because i didn't think I'd be able to afford college without coming out with a €15000+ loan and now fees on top of it???

you're the problem, not trying at all but still expecting something

Fighting Irish

randylonghorn wrote: »

I presume you're one of those who don't need / are unlikely to receive a grant?

sure help the wasters

LeotheLion

Fighting Irish wrote: »

sure help the wasters

and what kind of brainless comment is that?

If your suggesting that someone who could do with financial assistance in the form of a grant,which they are entitled to,can be deemed a waster?

You obviously dont have the correct mentality to go to college/complete a degree or enter society

You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands

KnifeWRENCH

Fighting Irish wrote: »

sure help the wasters

Not everyone who requires a grant is a "waster". That is a ridiculous generalisation to make.

LeotheLion wrote: »

You obvioulsy dontt have the correct mentality to go to college/complete a degree or enter society

You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands

Quit the abuse please.

Piste

SligoBrewer wrote: »

This tax is and should be income tax Piste. As those with 3rd level education will be earning on average far more than those with out 3rd level education. What about the thirteen years of people who have gone through without paying a graduate tax? I'll pay for my education via income tax, as it's by the far the fairest way to tax an economy.

Yeah that was affordable during the celtic tiger, but now the income tax has to go to other areas like healthcare, defence and those darned banks so can't go to education. We need to pay for education. Before we paid through taxes, now that's not enough so fees have to come in. Education was never free in this country, it was always paid for through income tax, which meant that everyone paid for education, whether they benefited from it or not. Now only those that receive third level education will pay for it, which seems fairer to me.

Fighting Irish

LeotheLion wrote: »

and what kind of brainless comment is that?

If your suggesting that someone who could do with financial assistance in the form of a grant,which they are entitled to,can be deemed a waster?

You obviously dont have the correct mentality to go to college/complete a degree or enter society

You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands

it was a piss take statement :pac::D

I do believe though that the whole world needs to stop helping the people who don't/haven't even tried

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Quit the abuse please.

Don't worry about it, i was fishing

randylonghorn

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Did I say that was right?

No, you just ignored them completely because they didn't suit your argument!

SligoBrewer wrote: »

We did, before the abolition of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, but thats a whole different story.

Hmmm ... I'm tempted to get into this one with you. In fairness, yet again, I don't completely disagree ... but yet again, it's a statement which is way too simplistic and black and white to be defensible.

However, that debate has no place in the LC forum, so I'll let it drop.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I hope to go and do something like that, the townships in South Africa being my particular place that I wish to visit/help.

Fair play, and I mean that genuinely. You will find it a very educational experience apart from anything else, and I doubt that you will ever look at things in quite the same way again.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

If we are to have any way out of this mess, It's via education. While my earlier post may have been seen as rather selfish, admittedly taxing going to college will not help things. A 3rd band of tax at ~60% and an increase of the higher rate of tax to 45-46% would be much fairer, as we still would be paying for our education when we actually started making money, and not having the mountain of debt inflicted upon us by FF.

I can very much see where you're coming from, but again, it's not black and white, and a lot of things have to be balanced up and the best compromise reached.

The factor which immediately strikes me when I read that paragraph is the disincentive it would create to inward investment or indeed to retaining our own native entrepreneurs.

We badly need people to come invest in Ireland right now, and the reality is that there isn't much investment activity out there worldwide at the moment, so we're in a very competitive market.

So what do we have to offer the big investors? A resonably educated work-force, yes (and that comes back to your basic argument, I know) but so do other places.

What else? Em ... lots of rain is about the only thing I can think of right now.

Our wage costs are still inordinately high by world standards.

We're peripheral geographically to the rest of Europe and the big population centres and markets. Products which don't rely on shipping such as Google, at least we're on a level playing field there, but with products which do, which are still the majority, we're at a decided disadvantage.

The last thing we want to do is reinstate a tax-regime which punitively penalises those who have a good idea, employ people and make money, otherwise they will have another reason to go elsewhere. Much the same goes for our home-grown entrepreneurs ... if we tax the bejaysus out of them why should they bother?

So ... the socialist within me agrees with you, the realist who co-habits with him is very skeptical!

randylonghorn

Piste wrote: »

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy.

Again, I don't think there's a hope. Oh, the politicos will dress it up in satin and lace, and it will be like watching a reprise of the governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas ... but they're already cutting back drastically at third level, and by the time this happens, even if the full fees raised come to the colleges, the best we can hope for is that it will plug the gaps made by the cuts they're currently implementing.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000.

I completely agree, but see my comments above.

Taxation should be progressive, not regressive ... but it can't be punitive to the point where people just find somewhere else to set up shop.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

If I was in a 60% tax band, paying at the highest rate possible, I'd be more than happy to pay, as it would mean that I would have a standard of living that was very comfortable indeed.

Fair play, but in my experience that attitude only lasts until people find themselves earning a lot of money ... then suddenly they start looking for ways to avoid paying any tax at all!!

SligoBrewer wrote: »

This tax is and should be income tax Piste. As those with 3rd level education will be earning on average far more than those with out 3rd level education. What about the thirteen years of people who have gone through without paying a graduate tax? I'll pay for my education via income tax, as it's by the far the fairest way to tax an economy.

I suggested above that as one of a raft of measures ALL graduates earning above a certain (decent) salary should pay a 1% levy towards HE.

A raft of measures to try to spread the pain, and not have it all suddenly fall on your heads i.e. those going through college in the next few years.

Because you're right in a sense ... while I still say you'll get nowhere by jumping up and down and throwing a wobbly, still it isn't especially fair that the whole load should fall on you lot.

randylonghorn

sock puppet wrote: »

Ireland wasn't too badly affected by the Great Depression as opposed to industrialised countries.

Mainly because our economy was so depressed it couldn't get much worse! But you're right ... an agriculturally-based borderline-subsistence agrarian economy like ours was fairly immune to the Great Depression.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

sure help the wasters

Would you care to define "wasters"? ... watching those hobnail boots of yours on that very thin ice while you're doing so, of course.

LeotheLion wrote: »

and what kind of brainless comment is that? ... You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands

Leave it out, unless you have a yen to spend a week potato-picking in other forums bar this one.

Piste wrote: »

Yeah that was affordable during the celtic tiger, but now the income tax has to go to other areas like healthcare, defence and those darned banks so can't go to education.

Wait, whut?!! :eek:

I really don't mean to offend, m'lady fair, but have you been on the sherry?

Why on earth should we prioritise defence above education?

This country has never been in a position to properly defend itself since the inception of the state. We rely on the good will of our neighbours and NATO and the US, on world public opinion, and the fact that we haven't any real enemies or dangerous neighbours to keep us safe.

If even a 4th rate military power decided to invade, we would have little choice but to bend over and take it up the ... Shannon estuary! We could probably mount a reasonable guerilla resistance all right; the Irish have always been good at making unwanted guests in our country feel uncomfortable.

And defend against who, anyway?? Our tiny naval unit has some work to do all right, what with poaching fishermen and smugglers and illegal immigrants (though we're likely to see less of the latter for a while!)

What do our army have to do? Look macho outside the banks when there's a cash delivery? Keep an eye on the border with NI (and even that's less of a problem than 20 years ago)? Polish their weapons and show them to the President?

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I do believe though that the whole world needs to stop helping the people who don't/haven't even tried.

So those who get grants haven't even tried, eh?

Well, they seem to have tried hard enough in their LC to get into college for a start.

I have no doubt that some people abuse the grant scheme, but many people work hard to get into college, get the grant because their financial circumstances merit it, work hard to finish college, and go on to become useful tax-paying members of society.

Such BS makes me believe the first part of your nick and deeply regret the second part ...

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Don't worry about it, i was fishing

Fishing forum is here.

Piste

Lol I meant the guards! Like defending us from each other, not defending the country from others! Though in hindsight it woulda made more sense to say "police force" instead of defence :pac:

randylonghorn

Piste wrote: »

Lol I meant the guards! Like defending us from each other, not defending the country from others! Though in hindsight it woulda made more sense to say "police force" instead of defence :pac:

Just slightly ... ~_^

We

SligoBrewer wrote: »

It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000.

It's usually best to stop talking when you have no idea what your talking about..

You'd think that having just finished the leaving cert you might still remember that little term 'standard cut-off point' from maths...

€40k earner..
36k @ 20% = 7200
4k @ 41% = 1640

total= €8840..


€2,000,000 earner
36k @ 20% = 7200
1,964,000 @ 41% = 805,240

total = €812,440

Theres more to it, tax credits and other things, but you should be able to see how flawed your thinking on this is..

Want to talk politics? try it on the politics forum and see how long you last without someone slating and exposing you for not having a clue what your talking about..

Forget taxing the rich, tax the ignorant! they wont even realise...

SligoBrewer

We wrote: »

It's usually best to stop talking when you have no idea what your talking about..

You'd think that having just finished the leaving cert you might still remember that little term 'standard cut-off point' from maths...

€40k earner..
36k @ 20% = 7200
4k @ 41% = 1640

total= €8840..


€2,000,000 earner
36k @ 20% = 7200
1,964,000 @ 41% = 805,240

total = €812,440

Theres more to it, tax credits and other things, but you should be able to see how flawed your thinking on this is..

Want to talk politics? try it on the politics forum and see how long you last without someone slating and exposing you for not having a clue what your talking about..

Forget taxing the rich, tax the ignorant! they wont even realise...

Eh.. wtf are you on about? My point was that both were paying in the same tax band as each other. Not the same amount of tax. You are basically repeating what I said. :rolleyes:

EDIT: You didn't even read the piece you quoted.

We

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Eh.. wtf are you on about? My point was that both were paying in the same tax band as each other. Not the same amount of tax. You are basically repeating what I said. :rolleyes:

EDIT: You didn't even read the piece you quoted.

Maybe you didn't read my post..

You seem to be implying in your post that the person earning 40k and the person earning 2mil are contributing the same proportions or percent of their salary towards tax, and that is why a higher, 60% tax rate is needed on top of the 40%..

My point was that this is the reason for the standard cut off rate.. When you do the maths, the 40k earner only has to contribute around 27% of his total salary towards tax, while the 2mil earner has to contribute just under 40%.. a much bigger slice of his pizza It already has the effect of your proposed 60% rate, just less, as 60% would be rediculous and remove any incentive that the rich had for staying in this country.


I think that should suffice.. if not, your on your own to figure it out..

SligoBrewer

We wrote: »

Maybe you didn't read my post..

You seem to be implying in your post that the person earning 40k and the person earning 2mil are contributing the same proportions or percent of their salary towards tax, and that is why a higher, 60% tax rate is needed on top of the 40%..

My point was that this is the reason for the standard cut off rate.. When you do the maths, the 40k earner only has to contribute around 27% of his total salary towards tax, while the 2mil earner has to contribute just under 40%.. a much bigger slice of his pizza It already has the effect of your proposed 60% rate, just less, as 60% would be rediculous and remove any incentive that the rich had for staying in this country.

I know exactly what you are saying, but they are still paying at the same tax band. Which is my point, and I never stated any different.
The person paying a 60% tax can well afford to pay tax at 60%, as they would be earning a lot of money. The whole idea would be to tax those who can easily afford it, avoiding taxing those who can't. The incentive to earn money will always be there.

sock puppet

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I know exactly what you are saying, but they are still paying at the same tax band. Which is my point, and I never stated any different.
The person paying a 60% tax can well afford to pay tax at 60%, as they would be earning a lot of money. The whole idea would be to tax those who can easily afford it, avoiding taxing those who can't. The incentive to earn money will always be there.

Why? If I was rich enough to be in the 60% band I'd either move from the country or else just not bother trying to earn above that. If it was a choice between fees and higher taxes I'd take the fees.

SligoBrewer

sock puppet wrote: »

Why? If I was rich enough to be in the 60% band I'd either move from the country or else just not bother trying to earn above that.

Not all of your income would be at 60% Only the proportion over the threshold, see the example given by We above.

sock puppet

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Not all of your income would be at 60% Only the proportion over the threshold, see the example given by We above.

Which is why there'd be no point in earning above the threshold.

SligoBrewer

sock puppet wrote: »

Which is why there'd be no point in earning above the threshold.

Wealth redistribution then so?

sock puppet

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Wealth redistrubution then so?

Well yes. Redistributed to other countries that is.

SligoBrewer

sock puppet wrote: »

Well yes. Redistributed to other countries that is.

Explain how please.