3rd Level Fees: Rich families to pay

PH01

Third-level fees will be introduced for students from "very wealthy" families next October, although the Cabinet will not decide on the income thresholds to be applied until the end of May.

This seems fair?

Annasopra

Well I'd prefer to wait and see what the government proposals are before saying this is fair or not, however, what happens in a scenario like this:

An 18 year old guy whose parents earn 250,000 decide that he can fend for himself, that he is financially independent, so he moves out of home and becomes "financially independent" . Is he able to claim free fees?

Spock

I think its unfair that because you have skills and earn a lot of money you have to pay fees, only the poor seem to have equel rights, the wealthy get fecked

Lenny

Everyone that lives in your household Will be taken into account When they're checking the familys finical status, so your brother and sisters and parents earning Will all be added up

Cork

No, I think you have to be over 23.

I think the government should clarify what it intends to do.

I am in favour of reforming the grants system and abolishing free fees.

By putting a ceiling on fees - will force all to send in their income.

Patipiciapation in third level needs encouragement. Free Fees had not improved participation one bit.

MAC_E

Very true, how on earth would they tell the difference or prove that the new student isnt getting support from his family

shotamoose

For reference, there was a pretty good discussion on this topic some time ago here .

solice

Patipiciapation in third level needs encouragement. Free Fees had not improved participation one bit.

i dont agree, for instance, five years ago there was 10,000 studeents in UCC. today there are 14,000. free fees must have had something to do with that.

neway i am in favour of bringing back fees, but only if it is means tested. we can all say that "oh yeah thats discrimination of the wealthy in society. they worked hard to become doctors and lawyers, why should they have to pa more".
they should have to pay more cos they are capable of paying more.

bring in a fair and just method of means testing a family and i will for the first time stand up and say to bertie ahern, "well done".

Everyone that lives in your household Will be taken into account When they're checking the familys finical status, so your brother and sisters and parents earning Will all be added up

but i do not like that one.

Mighty_Mouse

no-body can defend millionaires getting free education !!!

But thats not where the argument comes from .

My problem here is that it would be the thin end of the wedge. A level that would be brought lower and lower every budget year.

Also the level that this earnings test will be at is dodgy out. !!

Reason: cause it will have to be low enough to recoup enough money so as to absorp administration cost and provide enough cash to resolve some of the outstanding educational problems.

ADMINISTRATION COSTS - i nearly had a heart-attack!! Civil service admin costs - forget about its fees for everybody!!!!!!!!


So i'll swallow the fact that the rich are getting free fees so as not to jepordise the education of the lower classes-just about middle class bracket!!

solice

thats a good point, the threshold would have to be quite low so as to cover costs and make a profit.
but this govt has squandered any profit they have ever made so i dont think they will worry too much about that.

Lemming

just one thing that just struck me.

The rich already pay more (in the form of a higher tax-band). Granted, so do a lotof other people.

But what is "rich"? To someone on the dole for the last 20 years I'd be filthy rich, when in fact I'm middle-class. To someone who's a proper millionaire, I'd be earning pittance.

By the time someone's been out working for a couple of years after graduating, they'd have paid off the bulk of what it cost them to go through college in the first place.

Incidentally, iirc, UCD has a full-time population of 17000 (ish), with another n,000 part-timers.

solice

if it was means tested properly it would be fair.
for example if a family earns
<100,000 pay full fees
<85,000 pay a certain percentage more.
etc


this is a very simple idea and of course more things would have to be taken into consideration, such as family members with disabilities etc.

Lemming

Originally posted by solice
if it was means tested properly it would be fair.
for example if a family earns
<100,000 pay full fees
<85,000 pay a certain percentage more.
etc

Fair enough - taking my parents incomes & my own (if applicable at the time) into account.

taking siblings incomes into account? My siblings most CERTAINLY did not contribute to my colleg eeducation in any way financially, so why should they be included in the means test I ask?

If they want to be fair, then they should also look at if there are multiple siblings from a household attending/applying to attend 3rd level education.

Telling a family with, say, both parents earning a combined income over the 100,000 mark with twins that they must pay full fees TWICE when the benchmark is used per-individual is both unfair and extremely short-sighted.

"Who do you love more mammy & daddy? Me or my twin?"

You get my point?

ANd besides, there's already a means test for grants. Making some people pay for fees isn't going to do squat anyway. The people relying on grants etc aren't going to see any of the recouped monies anyway.

Sparks

Bringing fees back is the thin end of the wedge, and frankly only harms our economy in the long run. What's our main national resource? It sure as doughnuts isn't oil - it's an educated labour force. Which means that we can't bring back fees - instead we have to expand the grants program so that expenses other than fees can be covered by the state for those that can't afford to cover them but have the ability.

And for what it's worth, if fees hadn't been abolished, my siblings would have had to wait two years until I had graduated before they could have started college. The lovely thing about means testing is that it picks you out as not being eligible for grants because you can afford to send one kid to college - but if you need to send two, well, you can afford to send one, so no grant for you!

And why is it that the people making the decision (which most affects the least wealthy) are never going to be affected by that decision?

seamus

Once again, the Government has fscked up and decided to implement something completely unrelated to the problems they are trying to solve.

I don't live at home. I live on what I earn in work, and the rare times that my Dad throws €200 my way. Is it fair for the Government to sweep in and say, "right, well, even though you're financially separated from your parents, we're going to use their income as a means test"? Uh, no. None of my siblings live at home either. Their combined incomes would be well over the €100,000 mark. But they all have their own lives, and mortgages to pay etc etc. WTF has their income got to do with anything?

I honestly think the Government are trying to encourage students to go overseas. If Hibernian have their way, no student will be able to get a bike. Very few students can afford to get cars. Infrastructure has gone to ****. And if they re-introduce fees, thousands will either not go to college, or have to leave college early - what is going to happen in October to everyone halfway through their courses? I have one year left., and certainly can't afford to pay fees. The prospect of having to go back under my parent's wing is not an appealing one.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Lemming
The rich already pay more (in the form of a higher tax-band). Granted, so do a lotof other people.

Rich people tend to know how to not pay more tax then they need to and can afford to pay people to do this for them.

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobbes
Rich people tend to know how to not pay more tax then they need to and can afford to pay people to do this for them.

That's a very sweeping statement there Hobbes. I could say that long-term dole applicants "tend to know how to" milk the system for every single penny they can get their hands on.

That bit of OT commentary doesn't deal with the fact that they still pay higher taxes anyway, since they're in the 48% (??) tax band compared to the 20-something tax-band (please correct the % figures as I'm sure I'm wrong). Since they've more money in the bank, they'll be paying more on interest accrued too, etc. etc.

As I've said earlier too, I'm out of college and have been working for 2 years this coming august for the company I was hired by shortly after leaving. I'm pretty sure that i've paid back a significant amount of what it cost to send me through college by now. So it all evens out.

The only reason we're in this mess right now is because the current government are incompetent fvckwits at running the country in general and couldn't manage a child's piggy-bank.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Bringing fees back is the thin end of the wedge, and frankly only harms our economy in the long run. What's our main national resource? It sure as doughnuts isn't oil - it's an educated labour force. Which means that we can't bring back fees - instead we have to expand the grants program

What's stopping us from doing both? Why can't we reintroduce fees for the rich and use the money to improve the grants program for the poor?

And for what it's worth, if fees hadn't been abolished, my siblings would have had to wait two years until I had graduated before they could have started college.

No they wouldn't. They would have been able to get student loans which they wouldn't have had to pay back until they started earning above a certain threshold.

And why is it that the people making the decision (which most affects the least wealthy) are never going to be affected by that decision?

Read the title of this thread: "Rich families to pay".

GuanYin

The easiest way to do it is to abolish fees and bring in a grant system based on Family socio-economic background


Working something like this:

Combined Earnings of Guardians
<50,000 = Full Fees
50-85,000 = 75% Fees
85-100,000 = 50% Fees
100,000-125,000=25% Fees
>125,000 = No Fees

And the maintenance grant should be reviewed in a similar way.

This scale should be biased with the number of children attending college in some way too.

Lemming

Originally posted by Meh
What's stopping us from doing both? Why can't we reintroduce fees for the rich and use the money to improve the grants program for the poor?

Because the poor would never see the money. Charlie McGreedy's horsey friends would.

No they wouldn't. They would have been able to get student loans which they wouldn't have had to pay back until they started earning above a certain threshold.

Ask 18 year old would they like to go through college and get stuck paying back a massive loan for 10 years?

Is that more or less of a dissincentive to attend college? You tell me?

Read the title of this thread: "Rich families to pay".

Doesn't answer the origianl question about stuff like this being passed by people who will not be affected by it. I'll lay odds down that every politician involved in this has kids that have been through college already on the free-education waggon and thus won't be affected by this.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Lemming
That's a very sweeping statement there Hobbes. I could say that long-term dole applicants "tend to know how to" milk the system for every single penny they can get their hands on.

The difference is that the rich person can do it legally and there's a big difference between being poor and rich.

I'm not saying all Rich people do, but most rich people didn't get rich by being stupid.

(Note: I'm not rich but I am in the 48% tax band) When I was in the US I had a company do my taxes for the three years and I was amazed at how much they were able to get away with not paying. Certainly not stuff any average Joe would know without spending time and resources to find out. I would guess that same sort of crap goes on here.

Since they've more money in the bank, they'll be paying more on interest accrued too, etc. etc.

Misread this first and thought you meant the poor people. Like I said most rich people didn't get rich by being stupid and wouldn't put the majority of their money in a location where they would end up p1ssing most of it away to the revenue commisioners.

Rich people also tend not to have to worry about things like "Will I be able to eat this week and pay the bills?", let alone can they go through college.

I might be a bit upset if a rich person wasn't allowed say go watch a movie (because they weren't poor) and visa versa, but not in the case of education where it can help people change their social standing and better themselves and others.

Sparks

That's a very sweeping statement there Hobbes.

But justified - look at the ansbacher accounts debacle.

What's stopping us from doing both? Why can't we reintroduce fees for the rich and use the money to improve the grants program for the poor?

Because you didn't say who's rich and who's poor! Hell, compared to what my family was when I was born, we're stinking filthy rich now - but we still couldn't afford to send both me and my sister to college at the same time. And so long as that fuzziness exists, it'll get exploited by corrupt politicians trying to cut money from one area of the budget to allow for tax cuts in an election year or whatever.

No they wouldn't. They would have been able to get student loans which they wouldn't have had to pay back until they started earning above a certain threshold.

No, they wouldn't have. What, you think we just gave up on the idea without looking into it?
Besides which, Austrailian and American experience has shown student loan schemes don't work well at all.

Read the title of this thread: "Rich families to pay".

And they won't be affected. The people making the decision have so much financial security that it's not going to be a concern for them if they do have to pay, and odds are they'll find a loophole anyway.

po0k

I don't know about the rest of you but this is my situation regarding college:
I'm just gone 19.
My mother is a primary school teacher.
I'm sitting my 2nd year exams atm.
My family home is 10 miles from the college, I moved into town last september because I was finding it hard to get lifts in int he morning (relied on hitching for a year, in some terrible weather, was late for a good few lectures). There is no proper bus service from where I live.

because the distance is under 15miles we can't get a grant.
because my mother's income is slightly above the threshold we can't get a grant.
because her income is from the government there is no way she can *hide* income for a year to get the grant, unlike alot of self-employed / business owners I know who have adjusted their income reports for the year their child enters college to get the grant, and report it as normal the following year, by which time they have the grant and cn keep it, even though they're now reporting higher income. These people drive BMWs.
I've been working since I started college, and my course work has suffered a bit as a result.
I have no problem paying taxes, and I will pay my dues, but I bloody well expect a return from them.
That is one of the major problems with this country.
Plenty of taxation and fuck all being done with it to improve services and quality of life for people. A poignient example of this being that sorry excuse for a toothpick in O'Connel St.
Now I think we'll be leveled with a bill of ~E1500 in september for me to continue my studies. We will pay it. because it'll be introduced over the summer when the student bodies are at their weakest.
It's this sort of "shly-boots" underhand tactics which infuriate me with the current regime. I voted in the last referendum and I will continue to exercise my right to vote, and I will not be voting FF.

I've left gaps and hole sin my rant, but I could care less.

Lemming

Ok, my deep-seated fears over this issue are as follows:

I have zero, zilch, zip, nyeada, none, absolutely nothing, !, confidence in this government on such a serious and potentially life-altering (for applicants/students) issue as this to NOT make an absolute boll0cks of what they're proposing.

I can see a lot of "innocent bystanders" , so to speak, being caught in the cross-fire. If I recall, college applications in the UK are already in steady decline since they re-introduced fees*

Secondly, a tiered education system like this is not an equal and fair system & I can see it leading to some ugly practices. I mean, somebody is penalised because their parents managed to be successful in whatever it was they were doing. I'd rather EVERYONE was able to avail of what I was able to avail of, rather than being selective about it.

Thirdly, I can see fee's making absolutely no difference to the current situation. The poor won't see any tangible benefit

Forthly, there are other reasons why many people from "poorer" backgrounds don't go to college besides the initial cost. There are social factors to take into account that this, quite frankly, wont affect at all.





* - this is from memory from the Beeb news a while back and this is possibly not 100% accurate

hussey

Originally posted by SyxPak


because the distance is under 15miles we can't get a grant.

I got a grant and I live around 5mls from my college

are you sure this is correct

seamus

I think the main issue here is equality. This is not a socialist state (thank God), it's a democratic one, i.e. everyone is equal in the eyes of the state, and you do the best with the hand you've been dealt. Obviously, we're not the extreme of this, we do have social welfare, and grant programmes, but when you start pushing this even harder (i.e. Taking extra, non-Tax money from the wealthy to fund the poor) is where you start being discriminatory.

In theory, I've no problem with sliding scales for fees, but it's mainly the way they're looking at implementing it that I have a problem with. If someone can show that they're not dependant on their parents for support, and they can't afford fees, then they should be entitled to free fees. Of course, many wealthy families will find loopholes in this, but at least it's a catch-all net, as opposed to the proposed scheme, which will exclude those who's parents won't pay, or who's parents have too many dependants/debts etc to pay.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sparks
But justified - look at the ansbacher accounts debacle.

Indeed. Also look at the amount of people stung claiming the dole and moonlighting whenever the government mounts such check-points up outside council estates from time to time.

Corruption isn't the preserve of the rich.

No, they wouldn't have. What, you think we just gave up on the idea without looking into it?
Besides which, Austrailian and American experience has shown student loan schemes don't work well at all.

You're also forgetting the UK in that now. But indeed, I have a story about a canadian guy for you.

A friend of mine was int he college of surgeons, along with this canadian guy. He wouldn't have been making money for himself until he turned 34 because of the level of debt he would amass by the time he graduated. And that was in first year in college!

Sparks

A friend of mine was int he college of surgeons, along with this canadian guy. He wouldn't have been making money for himself until he turned 34 because of the level of debt he would amass by the time he graduated. And that was in first year in college!

Anecdotal, but that is one of the two main problems with student loans - the financial burden they place on graduates at a point where they're trying to start their lives, buy houses, get married, have kids and so on. The other problem is related - a large percentage of people receiving those loans default on them in the US and Australia. Which means that the State loses money.

Cork

There was a survey quoted on this mornings morning Ireland that showed Arts graduates are paid 5% less than non graduates.

I know people with good degrees working in shops, building sites, hotels etc.

But the grants system needs big reform. Free Fees was a measure that benefited the rich. Children of the rich have benefited from free fees.

I know conenants were abandoned. What was needed at the time was reform of the grants system.

I don;t think Bertie will introduce universal fees. They would be war in the middle classes.

Capitation & Registeration fees will be increased yet again. This will be more palatable to our middle classes.

But - as a consequence we will not get grant reform or higher participation in third level education by certain groups in our society.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Anecdotal, but that is one of the two main problems with student loans - the financial burden they place on graduates at a point where they're trying to start their lives, buy houses, get married, have kids and so on.

You talk as if the money for "free" fees comes from nowhere. What about the financial burden imposed on ordinary workers who didn't go to college, don't get the financial benefits of a university education and still have to pay for it through their taxes? "Free fees" is like some twisted version of Robin Hood -- it takes from the poor and gives to the rich (and if you're saving to buying a house, you are rich).

The other problem is related - a large percentage of people receiving those loans default on them in the US and Australia.

University fees in the US are up to $40k a year. Even if fees were reintroduced in this country, they would be nothing like as high as this. I saw a figure of 2-3k a year mentioned (no link, sorry).

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
A friend of mine was int he college of surgeons, along with this canadian guy. He wouldn't have been making money for himself until he turned 34 because of the level of debt he would amass by the time he graduated. And that was in first year in college!

Yes, it would be a much better idea if someone else paid for him to get his education, so that then he could start earning money much sooner.

Then, when he wants to buy a house, he should get someone else to pay for that too, because - like his qualification - its going to prevent him "making money for himself" until it is paid for.

Funny...I coulda sworn that getting a degree and deciding to become a surgeon was a freely made personal choice. Guess not.

jc

Sparks

Meh,

You talk as if the money for "free" fees comes from nowhere. What about the financial burden imposed on ordinary workers who didn't go to college, don't get the financial benefits of a university education and still have to pay for it through their taxes?

Firstly, if free fees are abolished, we won't be seeing a tax cut anyway.
Second, if you have free fees, then ordinary workers are paying for the chance for their kids to go to college. That's rather important for most people - to see their kids progress and prosper more than they could.

"Free fees" is like some twisted version of Robin Hood -- it takes from the poor and gives to the rich (and if you're saving to buying a house, you are rich).

Incorrect Meh. We sure as hell weren't rich, and free fees were a lifesaver - 'cos we were in that neat bracket where you earn too much to get grants and too little to be able to afford college.
And if owning a home makes you rich, our economy is doing a lot better than most people think...

bonkey,

Yes, it would be a much better idea if someone else paid for him to get his education, so that then he could start earning money much sooner.

*sigh*
And who pays for defaulted student loans?
And since an educated labour force improves the economy and thus helps everyone (especially for our economy)...

Funny...I coulda sworn that getting a degree and deciding to become a surgeon was a freely made personal choice. Guess not.

So you want to tell everyone thinking of becoming a doctor that they have to accept crippling financial burdens?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks

Firstly, if free fees are abolished, we won't be seeing a tax cut anyway.

You're right, maybe the money spared will be spent on reforming the grants system or improving healthcare or putting more police on the streets or any of the other stuff that the government spends money on.

And if owning a home makes you rich, our economy is doing a lot better than most people think...

That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does.

Second, if you have free fees, then ordinary workers are paying for the chance for their kids to go to college.

But under your proposal, they're also paying for Tony O'Reilly's children to go to college.This argument is a red herring -- under the government proposal, ordinary workers would still be entitled to free third-level education. So at worst, average people are completley unaffected by the change.

So you want to tell everyone thinking of becoming a doctor that they have to accept crippling financial burdens?

Let's say medicine in UCD costs €4,000 a year, and the course lasts 5 years. Let's also assume that you do no summer work or part-time whatsoever, and that you get no help from your wealthy parents. You will graduate €20k in debt.

Now let's assume that a junior doctor earns just €10k a year more than they would if they didn't have a degree. They will have the debt cleared in two years. Seems a small price to pay for a good career.

Incorrect Meh. We sure as hell weren't rich, and free fees were a lifesaver - 'cos we were in that neat bracket where you earn too much to get grants and too little to be able to afford college.

This isn't a reason to keep free fees. This is a reason to reform the grants system.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
*sigh*
And who pays for defaulted student loans?

As opposed to paying for all loans. You do the math. Work out which costs the taxpayer more?

And there are steps you can take against defaulters to regain some/all costs. The only way that they should be able to get away with it is be emigrating permanently or remaining permanently unemployed.

So you want to tell everyone thinking of becoming a doctor that they have to accept crippling financial burdens?

By that standard, buying a house is a "crippling financial burden". Strangely, I dont see many people claiming that the government should pay for everyone to own their house to spare them the burden.

In both cases, you are overlooking the fact that you get something for the money you chose to spend. Thats generally called an investment, not a burden. Even if there's no guarantee of return, its still an invcestment.

I see no difference in expecting the government to pay for one investment over another. If your mate gets to be a doctor for free, why shouldnt I get a house for free? We're talking same ballpark figures here.

As a matter of interest, would I be correct in guessing that you have not yet attended university, and that may have some small impact on your position?

jc

seamus

Originally posted by Meh
You're right, maybe the money spared will be spent on reforming the grants system or improving healthcare or putting more police on the streets or any of the other stuff that the government spends money on.

That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does.

These two points are flawed. Fair enough, at an individual level, College education is a luxury. Not having it may be a waste of your abilities, but at the end of the day you can get along without it, whereas you'd have trouble getting alng without Gardai to protect you or healthcare to keep to alive. But on a national level, a college educated workforce is just as critical. This entire argument in fact is one big maze of catch-22's and paradoxes. Without a college-educated workforce, the economy would stagnate and die. In order to get one, you risk damaging your economy by funding students. Someone from a poor background may end up with exactly the same income after college as someone from a wealthy background, similarly finished college. But the latter will be crippled with debt simply because he came from a rich background. Where's the equality there? However, without free fees, the guy from the poor background can't even get to college in the first place. That's all OT, but we must keep a very open mind on this issue. Like abortion, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, instead just a list of compromises that need to be made, on both sides.

Your second point is completely strange. By saving for a house, we mean that they are saving for a deposit to fill in the gap their mortgage won't cover. By owning a house we mean that they have a mortgage. So where's the difference?
If someone is saving €500 euro a month for a year to get a €6000 deposit, and another person is paying (a modest) €500 per month on their 25-year mortgage, how is the former any richer than the latter?

Sparks

Meh,

You're right, maybe the money spared will be spent on reforming the grants system or improving healthcare or putting more police on the streets or any of the other stuff that the government spends money on.

Like government jets and Bertie's makeup? Pah.

That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does.

No it doesn't. It means that you're not poor - but there's a difference between "not poor" and "rich"...

But under your proposal, they're also paying for Tony O'Reilly's children to go to college.This argument is a red herring -- under the government proposal, ordinary workers would still be entitled to free third-level education. So at worst, average people are completley unaffected by the change.

Yup - for the first year it's in force. How long until someone "tweaks" or "adjusts" the thresholds? How long until we're back to where we were before free fees?

Let's say medicine in UCD costs €4,000 a year, and the course lasts 5 years. Let's also assume that you do no summer work or part-time whatsoever, and that you get no help from your wealthy parents. You will graduate €20k in debt.

Wow, so you lived on nothing for five years? No rent, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no gas, no books, no A4 pads, no pens, nothing?

Now let's assume that a junior doctor earns just €10k a year more than they would if they didn't have a degree. They will have the debt cleared in two years. Seems a small price to pay for a good career.

Except that those figures are all wrong. You're talking about debt in the hundreds of thousands of euro if you want to be accurate about it.

This isn't a reason to keep free fees. This is a reason to reform the grants system.

I wish you could trust the government to do that. But you can't Best we can do is fight to keep the good things we have, and not let them ask for a step back to possibly get something at some indeterminate future date.

bonkey,

As opposed to paying for all loans. You do the math. Work out which costs the taxpayer more?

You're forgetting that those paying student loans also pay taxes. And usually pay more tax than those that didn't go to college.

And there are steps you can take against defaulters to regain some/all costs. The only way that they should be able to get away with it is be emigrating permanently or remaining permanently unemployed.

It was the emigration problem that was causing the majority of the defaults actually. And the neat thing about Ireland is that we have a long tradition of emigration and now that the economic boom is over, that'll be making a comeback...

By that standard, buying a house is a "crippling financial burden". Strangely, I dont see many people claiming that the government should pay for everyone to own their house to spare them the burden.

Buying a house is a crippling financial burden - or do you have 250,000 euro hanging about in your pocket?
And many people are most unhappy at how the prices were allowed to spiral by the government. So that analogy doesn't really hold.

I see no difference in expecting the government to pay for one investment over another. If your mate gets to be a doctor for free, why shouldnt I get a house for free? We're talking same ballpark figures here.

Your mate doesn't get to be a doctor for free. First, he has to study damn hard, and second he pays a lot more tax later on. Consider it as an investment by the state. You pay taxes to pay for a doctor who'll pay more taxes himself over the course of his career than you paid in in the first place.
Of course, you still have to worry about emigration...

As a matter of interest, would I be correct in guessing that you have not yet attended university, and that may have some small impact on your position?

I graduated from TCD six years ago. I teach labs there now while working on my PhD (which does not have free fees).

Meh

Originally posted by seamus
Someone from a poor background may end up with exactly the same income after college as someone from a wealthy background, similarly finished college. But the latter will be crippled with debt simply because he came from a rich background.

But if he's rich he'll won't have any problem with the debt!

Your second point is completely strange. By saving for a house, we mean that they are saving for a deposit to fill in the gap their mortgage won't cover. By owning a house we mean that they have a mortgage. So where's the difference?
If someone is saving €500 euro a month for a year to get a €6000 deposit, and another person is paying (a modest) €500 per month on their 25-year mortgage, how is the former any richer than the latter?

:rolleyes: I did not say that homeowners were poorer than people saving for a house. I said that owning a house does not necessarily mean you're rich -- i.e. that there is such a thing as a person who both owns a house and is poor. But if someone has the income to pay €500 a month mortgage, they're definitely not poor. Not eveve homeowner has a mortgage.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Like government jets and Bertie's makeup? Pah.

And of course, the government wastes 100% of its income on government jets and makeup for politicians. It spends nothing whatsoever on hospitals and schools.

No it doesn't. It means that you're not poor - but there's a difference between "not poor" and "rich"...

I'm sorry, but if you have €500 a month of surplus income on top of food, rent and transport to save towards a house, then you are rich by any definition of the term. I suppose you're using the usual middle-class definition of rich as "my income + 50%"?

Yup - for the first year it's in force. How long until someone "tweaks" or "adjusts" the thresholds? How long until we're back to where we were before free fees?

Slippery slope.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Wow, so you lived on nothing for five years? No rent, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no gas, no books, no A4 pads, no pens, nothing?

You would have to pay for that stuff free fees or not, so it makes no difference to my analysis.

Except that those figures are all wrong. You're talking about debt in the hundreds of thousands of euro if you want to be accurate about it.

Hundreds of thousands in debt? Utter rubbish. I'd like to see you back this up.

I wish you could trust the government to do that. But you can't Best we can do is fight to keep the good things we have, and not let them ask for a step back to possibly get something at some indeterminate future date.

So you'd rather waste your time campaigning to save he wasteful, inefficient and unjust free fees system, rather than trying to reform the grants system and actually improve social justice in this country?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Buying a house is a crippling financial burden - or do you have 250,000 euro hanging about in your pocket?

It seems to be a crippling burden that people are falling over themselves to assume. Indeed, those that can't afford the crippling burden wish they had more money so that they could get this crippling burden added to their woes.

If people are that eager to assume such a crippling burden, don't you think that its because they see an advantage in doing so? The same applies for becoming a doctor.

and second he pays a lot more tax later on.
Consider it as an investment by the state.

Fine - then make him pay for it up front and give him tax breaks in return as payback.
That way, if he skips the country, fails his course, ends up unemployed, or anything, the taxpayer is not footing the bill. The doc is not losing out "repaying" his loan, as he is being given tax-breaks to pay it back (thus it costs him nothing), the state has assumed no risk, and everyone is a winner.

Ultimately, if you can argue that the state can consider it an investment, then it must also be true that it is an investment for whoever pays the bill.

So why is it preferable to have the state pay? All I see are innumerable possibilities for more people to sponge off the state - not for the state to get a better return on investment.

The state loses if they pay for someone who emigrates. If the doc pays for their own education, then they dont lose out by emigrating.

I dont know what the figures are now, but when I finished secondary there was a shortage of university spaces. The aim was to bring our third-level education to the point where if someone wanted a place, they could have one. That is where the government's investment should be - making the facilities available - not paying for someone to use or abuse them as they see fit.

I'd even say that we should be spending money on improving our primary and secondary education rather than funding attendance to university. Not so long ago, Ireland was generally ranked second in the world for its educational system. Not there now. But lets not fix that...lets pay the doctor cause he shouldnt have to invest in his own future...we should.

Not for me thanks.

jc

Lemming

Ok OK OK, this has gone wayyy off OT on my little anecdote.

The point is that in order for kids in the US/Aus/UK to go through college, they have to be prepared to face SERIOUS debts for the next decade basically.

Do we really want to see something like that rear its head in this country if we can help it?

Do we want to tell our kids "Yes you can go to college, but you'll not be able to live your life for the next 'n' yearse whilst you face a massive debt" ?

Do you think that is going to encourage or discourage young people from goign to college. It's already happening in the UK (as I pointed out before)


Also, I am now an "ordinary tax payer". I am feeding back into the system that put me through college to allow someone else go through college. I have no problem with that.

I also fail to make the distinction between my paying for some rich persons kid to go to college and some poor persons kid to go to college. At the end of the day, everybody has the chance (generally speaking). Would you begrudge that? You're paying for EVERYONE's child to be able to avail of the system.


just as an aside thought - what would everybody's reaction be to making "rich people" pay for medical care? Same principle.

seamus

Originally posted by Meh
But if he's rich he'll won't have any problem with the debt! :rolleyes:

But now that he's left college he's not any richer than the other guy who earns the same amount, yet he has a huge debt. Or do you assume that all rich people live off their parents :rolleyes: As I've said above, parental income is not a good indicator of eligibility for free fees. I could have won the lotto, but if I live in Ballymun flats with my unemployment parents, I'm entitled to free fees. How is that fair?

I did not say that homeowners were poorer than people saving for a house. I said that owning a house does not necessarily mean you're rich -- i.e. that there is such a thing as a person who both owns a house and is poor. But if someone has the income to pay €500 a month mortgage, they're definitely not poor. Not eveve homeowner has a mortgage.

I hate to be a pedant, but
"That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does."
ergo, "People who can save to buy a house are rich". If that's not what you meant, then make a correction, but don't blatantly contradict yourself. :rolleyes: People who are saving to buy a house aren't necesarily wealthy. They may be poor, and are saving pittance. People paying a mortgage, similarly may be paying crippling amounts, to the detriment of their health and family, and they are poor. Even people who own their house outright aren't necessarily wealthy, they may have been paying a mortagage for the last 40 years, and they are still poor.
Sweeping generalisations are dangerous.

Meh

Originally posted by seamus
But now that he's left college he's not any richer than the other guy who earns the same amount, yet he has a huge debt. Or do you assume that all rich people live off their parents

Certainly while they're in college the vast majority of them do.

As I've said above, parental income is not a good indicator of eligibility for free fees. I could have won the lotto, but if I live in Ballymun flats with my unemployment parents, I'm entitled to free fees. How is that fair?

It's neither fair nor likely.

I hate to be a pedant, but
"That's not what I said. Owning a house doesn't mean you're rich. Being able to save to buy one does."
ergo, "People who can save to buy a house are rich". If that's not what you meant, then make a correction, but don't blatantly contradict yourself.

That's precisely what I meant. If you have enough money left over after food, rent and transport to save to buy a house of your own, then you are rich.

People who are saving to buy a house aren't necesarily wealthy. They may be poor, and are saving pittance.

There's nobody who's saving a "pittance" with any realistic expectation of buying a house.

Sparks

Meh,

And of course, the government wastes 100% of its income on government jets and makeup for politicians. It spends nothing whatsoever on hospitals and schools

No, but when it will buy a new government jet it doesn't need while letting schools be health hazards because "there's not enough money for the capital grant system", it doesn't say much for their prioritisation in funding.

I'm sorry, but if you have €500 a month of surplus income on top of food, rent and transport to save towards a house, then you are rich by any definition of the term.

No, you're not. When working hard and budgeting allows you to save that much a month, you're still not rich. You're not necessarily even well-off. There's a distinct difference between the O'Reilly's of this country (now that's rich) and those who have worked hard, graduated from college and been lucky enough to get a job.

I suppose you're using the usual middle-class definition of rich as "my income + 50%"

No. I'm using the definition that says that if your money does the work, you're rich.

Slippery slope

The slippery slope is only a fallacy when there's no reason to assume that y follows from x. But in this country, there's a lot of precedence to show that if y benefits a politicaly empowered minority, it tends to happen quickly.

You would have to pay for that stuff free fees or not, so it makes no difference to my analysis

Yes it does, because it's not certain that you'd have to pay for that stuff. You could be on a grant.

Hundreds of thousands in debt? Utter rubbish. I'd like to see you back this up

Fees, rent, food, normal bills, books, equipment.
Care to do a costing for five years of college plus more years of specialist training?

So you'd rather waste your time campaigning to save he wasteful, inefficient and unjust free fees system, rather than trying to reform the grants system and actually improve social justice in this country?

Nope, I'd rather campaign for free fees AND a reformed grants scheme. We have free fees now, why give it up to reform the grants scheme? And where's the proposal from the government to reform the grants scheme while reforming the fees scheme?

bonkey,

It seems to be a crippling burden that people are falling over themselves to assume.

That's mainly because of the lack of desirability of living on the street or in your parent's house...

If people are that eager to assume such a crippling burden, don't you think that its because they see an advantage in doing so?

Not sleeping in the rain? Not living in your parents house with your wife?

Fine - then make him pay for it up front and give him tax breaks in return as payback.

And where's he going to get the money to pay for it up front?
Student loan?
Back to the problem of emigration and defaulting...
And pragmatically, we get more money through the taxation method.

That way, if he skips the country, fails his course, ends up unemployed, or anything, the taxpayer is not footing the bill.

And what 17-year old is going to take that risk without a rich daddy? And if the numbers fall off, we get less doctors, and frankly I don't think that's a good idea.

Ultimately, if you can argue that the state can consider it an investment, then it must also be true that it is an investment for whoever pays the bill.

Well, lets see. You pay taxes now. In return, you get a trained doctor, and since he pays more taxes, the tax burden is spread more thinly and you get a reduction in taxes a few years down the road.
Of course, that assumes a competent honest government

The state loses if they pay for someone who emigrates. If the doc pays for their own education, then they dont lose out by emigrating.

The state still loses with student loans!

I dont know what the figures are now, but when I finished secondary there was a shortage of university spaces. The aim was to bring our third-level education to the point where if someone wanted a place, they could have one. That is where the government's investment should be - making the facilities available - not paying for someone to use or abuse them as they see fit.

Actually, at present that's where we are. There are sufficent facilities to cover the needs for the next 20 years, according to the demographics. But to assume the government is funding this is to ignore reality - in fact the funding to 3rd level has been slashed and next year's courses are going to show that in unpleasant clarity. The internal changes in TCD alone are giving most of us that demonstrate or teach there serious cause for concern.

I'd even say that we should be spending money on improving our primary and secondary education rather than funding attendance to university.

That's where the budget went this year, but the fact is that not enough is being put into funding for education and the whole system is going to have a fit because of it. Introducing fees again is little more than a cop-out by the government to avoid dumping more funding into it.

Not so long ago, Ireland was generally ranked second in the world for its educational system. Not there now. But lets not fix that...lets pay the doctor cause he shouldnt have to invest in his own future...we should.
Not for me thanks.

Poor analysis. Free fees didn't cause the problem in the education system. Poor examination standards did. And money won't solve that problem - but cutting the funding isn't going to help the situation either

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
No, you're not. When working hard and budgeting allows you to save that much a month, you're still not rich. You're not necessarily even well-off.

You know, all this self-pity from middle-class people who've never been hungry a day in their life is beginning to annoy me. There are people in this country who can't afford to feed their children properly and you're claiming that someone who has €500 a month to spare isn't well-off? You have no idea what real poverty is.

No. I'm using the definition that says that if your money does the work, you're rich.

Hmmm, that definition doesn't appear to be in my dictionary.

Yes it does, because it's not certain that you'd have to pay for that stuff. You could be on a grant.

And if you were on a grant, you wouldn't have to pay fees even if they were reintroduced! Are you being obtuse on purpose or what?

Fees, rent, food, normal bills, books, equipment.

I've already explained that non-fee-related expenses aren't relevant. We're talking about free fees here, in case you didn't read the title of the thread.

Nope, I'd rather campaign for free fees AND a reformed grants scheme. We have free fees now, why give it up to reform the grants scheme? And where's the proposal from the government to reform the grants scheme while reforming the fees scheme?

Here (today's Indo; registration required)

The Minister's promised review of student support is expected to be complete within the next few weeks. It will place great emphasis on helping disadvantaged students get to college and remain there.

Also in the Irish Times:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2003/0515/2019584794HM1FEES.html
The review is also set to herald major reform in the higher education grant scheme. Mr Dempsey believes that the current system favours the self-employed and farmers at the expense of PAYE workers.

That's mainly because of the lack of desirability of living on the street or in your parent's house...

Not sleeping in the rain? Not living in your parents house with your wife?

There are other accommodation options besides sleeping rough and living with your parents, you know. Ever hear of renting?

Sparks

You know, all this self-pity from middle-class people who've never been hungry a day in their life is beginning to annoy me. There are people in this country who can't afford to feed their children properly and you're claiming that someone who has €500 a month to spare isn't well-off? You have no idea what real poverty is.

Yes, I do. From personal experience. It's how I grew up. I've also seen what it takes to crawl out of it. So take your santimonious attitude somewhere where people won't know it for what it is.

Hmmm, that definition doesn't appear to be in my dictionary.

Show me a dictionary definition of "rich" with an annual salary figure.
I'll go by the definition I grew up with thanks.

And if you were on a grant, you wouldn't have to pay fees even if they were reintroduced! Are you being obtuse on purpose or what?

That's not how it used to work in the bad old days before free fees.

I've already explained that non-fee-related expenses aren't relevant. We're talking about free fees here, in case you didn't read the title of the thread.

And I've explained why they're relevant.

The Minister's promised review of student support is expected to be complete within the next few weeks. It will place great emphasis on helping disadvantaged students get to college and remain there.

You want me to take the word of a Fianna Fail politician who has ignored student protests, slashed 3rd level funding to the point where professors are being retired and lecturers made redundant? It's a promised review, not a proposed plan!

There are other accommodation options besides sleeping rough and living with your parents, you know. Ever hear of renting?

Gee, no, never. So tell me, what's the differential between a month's rent in dublin and a month's morgage in lucan?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes, I do. From personal experience. It's how I grew up. I've also seen what it takes to crawl out of it.

So you'd think you'd have more sense than to tell us how hard the people saving €500 a month have it.

That's not how it used to work in the bad old days before free fees.

No, that's exactly the way it used to work. Grant recipients had their fees paid for them as well as getting the grant money.

And I've explained why they're relevant.

No you haven't. No matter whether fees are reintroduced or not, non-grant students will still have to pay their own rent, food, books, travel etc. These expenses will not be affected either way by the government's proposal.

You want me to take the word of a Fianna Fail politician who has ignored student protests, slashed 3rd level funding to the point where professors are being retired and lecturers made redundant? It's a promised review, not a proposed plan!

Perhaps you might want to wait a week or two and hear what he has to say for himself before you dismiss it?

Gee, no, never. So tell me, what's the differential between a month's rent in dublin and a month's morgage in lucan?

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? The appropriate comparison is between a month's rent in Lucan and a month's mortgage in Lucan.

Sparks

So you'd think you'd have more sense than to tell us how hard the people saving €500 a month have it.

Actually, you'd be incorrect. See, I saw what it took to crawl from the point where every month saw you deeper in debt and wondering how long it was before you lost the house to the point where you could afford to retire. And the difference was education. So I'll be damned if I'll agree with any step that'll put my kids back to where I was before free fees came in.

No, that's exactly the way it used to work. Grant recipients had their fees paid for them as well as getting the grant money.

Yup - and where did that money come from? It was a part of the grants scheme! [pauses] Ah. Right, sorry, I should have written the original post more clearly. I didn't mean that you personally paid the college, I meant that the government has X funds for the grants scheme - your grant and the fees get paid from that.

No you haven't. No matter whether fees are reintroduced or not, non-grant students will still have to pay their own rent, food, books, travel etc. These expenses will not be affected either way by the government's proposal.

The reason I included them is that any loan you take out will have to include those costs. And those costs are often more than the fees, depending on the course. And since the reintroduction of fees is a means to introduce student loans...

Perhaps you might want to wait a week or two and hear what he has to say for himself before you dismiss it?

I'm not dismissing it - I can't since we haven't seen it yet. But past history tells me that this is not going to be a ground-breaking foray into socially progressive policy...

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? The appropriate comparison is between a month's rent in Lucan and a month's mortgage in Lucan.

I said Lucan and Dublin 'cos most graduates I know personally live in areas like Lucan and Bray and other dormitory towns, while working in Dublin. If you're going to rent a bedsit, might as well rent it in dublin to save on travel. But if you want, look up rent costs in Lucan as well.

Sparks

From today's Irish Times editorial:

Reintroducing college fees
The statement by the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, in the Dail yesterday that only the very well-off will be asked to pay college fees represents a significant intervention in the debate on third-level funding.
He said it had never been the Government's intention to bring back fees for the middle classes or even some sectors of society who might be regarded as well-off. He signalled that the Government - in its bid to widen college access - was targeting only the very rich.

The clarification by the Taoiseach on this matter appears to contradict the implicit message from the Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, over much of the past year. Essentially, this was that a broad swathe of people across the middle and upper classes of society could be asked to pay fees of several thousand euros per year in order to help level the playing field at third-level. In his original Irish Times interview on the issue last September, Mr Dempsey appeared to look forward to a time when the reintroduction of fees for the middle and upper classes would generate new funds to tackle access to third-level education. His plan was to divert these new resources to raise grants and other supports for disadvantaged students.

Taken at face value, Mr Ahern's statement in the Dail appears to rule out this radical model for the re-financing of disadvantaged schemes at third-level. Some will say that the Taoiseach is simply recognising political realities. His partners in government, the PDs, clearly have no stomach for the reintroduction of fees. There is also considerable unease on the Fianna Fáil backbenches. Already, nine deputies and some senators have voiced opposition to any such plan.

It is still too early to draw any definitive conclusions until the long-awaited report from the Department of Education and Science on third-level funding is published shortly. Mr Dempsey hinted yesterday that he was targeting - not just the super-rich - but also middle class people who take two or three holidays per year. This would suggest that he is holding fast to his original notion of a new funding landscape where those who can afford it will be asked to pay.

To be fair, Mr Dempsey has always stressed that the fees issue is but one element in a policy mix which could include a student loan scheme, increased student charges and a reformed grant scheme. The Minister seems determined to achieve radical change in some of these areas. The current higher education grant scheme which favours the self-employed and farmers at the expense of the ordinary PAYE worker is set to be re-fashioned. There is also much talk about an Australian-style loan scheme in which students repay fees on the basis of their annual income. Both of these initiatives would do much to create a more equitable and just third-level system. But, would they make it easier for a student from a disadvantaged area to gain access to college? The answer will be known only when the income thresholds are agreed by Cabinet.
© The Irish Times

(the empasis is mine)

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
The reason I included them is that any loan you take out will have to include those costs.

As will any loan you take out now. (Or any money you cadge off your parents, or any wages from a part time job.) You will have to pay those expenses regardless of whether the government reintroduces fees or not. So these expenses are not relevant to a debate on whether fees should be reintroduced or not.

Really, I'm coming to the conclusion that you're deliberately pretending to be obtuse to avoid conceding the point.

Sparks

Meh, I'm really not. The point I was trying to make is that those costs make the case for reform of the grant scheme, not the introduction of a student loans system. Clear?

kaimera

for [community] college in the States...

I've looked into going to teh States for college...too expensive.

first up $100 or so to have your results checked out to see if they meet the standard required to get into college.

then...[figures from Lake City Community College Florida]

for a International Student...[yer one said they had about 5 figure may be wrong international students this year]

Total Costs per year $13000

half of that is on campus lodgings. They didn't apply to me, but it was still gonna cost $7000 + a year for me to go.

that for at least 2 years till I graduated then the costs for University are outragous for another 2 years.

Student Loan was the only *viable* option had I to go but I needed a sponsor to sign with me in case I couldn't pay in the long run.
How many peeps are gonna back a 19 y.o Irish chap?

I've got a brother going to college aswell this year.

thats two bucket loads of fees for my family to provide for.

afaik, we dont qualify for a grant cos my dad did a lot of overtime last year and it was all recorded on his income form giving an inaccurate yearly figure.

it's all bollox.