Students' Union and hot air

aas · 03-11-2010 01:15AM

Tragedy wrote: »

What is bizarre? Where did I post a conclusion? Where did I say I wanted to re-introduce fees?

I said Steph going into lectures and telling people sob stories of students who've ran out of money and can't afford to keep attending college 6 weeks into the first term is a load of cack.

I also said why I thought it was a load of cack.

Where did I say we should reintroduce fees?

You're saying that not having money to pay for cost of living, registration, accommodation, etc, is no excuse, and then going on to say that you know people that go work for years just to go to college. So clearly the people with wealthy parents have far less barriers to entering third-level education. Note that whether or not you have wealthy parents is (I hope this is obvious) no reflection on you, your right to an education, etc, so this is a distinctly unfair situation. Increasing the registration fee will make it more unfair. A lot of people are proposing that the government introduce fees for the wealthy, but that still raises the issue that you yourself brought up - of people with wealthy parents that refuse to support them. It also leads to situations like parents pressuring their children into particular courses under the threat of not paying for them.
A far more equitable solution to the whole mess would be to simply increase the tax rate on the upper bracket of tax. People might think it's unfair that adults with no children have to subsidise the education of others, but it's no different from your taxes paying for the healthcare benefits of smokers. Having a university system that is accessible to everyone is beneficial to society and worth paying for, in the same way healthcare, public transport, etc, is.

anothernight · 03-11-2010 01:29AM

Tragedy wrote: »

I've been working(in fact I worked 4 years waiting to be a mature student and earning enough to support myself if full fees were re-introduced). Every single one of my friends who goes to college has or is working. As in fact does every one of my friends full stop. Girlfriend works weekends in an amusement arcade, two of her college friends work in a petrol station, another one works in a clothes shop, three more work in hotels, and two more work in restaurants/cafes.

Two friends teach music(piano and flute), two friends of theres work in a cafe/hotel back home respectively. Another friend works as a cafeteria girl in St Vincents and I know three people working in the new Landsdowne Road.

I honestly can't think of a single friend of mine who doesn't have a full or part time job. Not one.

And anyone I know who was desperate to find a job recently, found one because they were motivated enough. There are part time jobs out there, they don't pay well and they aren't nice, but they're there.

I call bull****.

I seriously wish I was one of your friends then, if they all find it so easy to find a job. Been looking for ages

as have a lot of my friends.

I'm not gonna get into the whole debate, but I must say that I do know people who were very slightly above the income threshold and couldn't afford the current reg fee.

devinejay · 03-11-2010 01:30AM

Firstly I personally found the class rep training beneficial and enjoyable. I don't think I'd be as motivated to actually get involved in actual student issues as I am were it not for getting to know people in the SU, what they're like, and the things they're working for. I admit that it does cost a fair bit, but when you factor in the sponsorship collected to offset said cost, and the number of reps attending it works out at something like 20 quid a head. I don't think that's a completely unreasonable price to pay for the conversion of a lot of class reps from mere ents-monkeys to actual contributors to the SU.

Secondly, the march. Previously on boards I've been outspoken against the SU, probably most notably around the time of the last march. Maybe they put something in the soup and sandwiches up in Balbriggan, but I've changed my tone.

I'm sick of people resigning to fees inevitably being introduced, and then just sitting on their arses content in themselves that they're the only ones seeing the wood for the trees. It's exactly what I did for the last two years and I now think it's entirely fruitless and in fact damaging to the students of the country as a whole.

The fact of the matter is the government and our nation's TDs are all too well aware of this prevailing attitude of apathy and disregard for politics amongst the student body. They generally put us low down on the priorities list, far below the public service for example, even though the USI represents the second largest voting body in the state.

I don't for one minute want to suggest that students deserve a privileged existence, exempt from cuts because there's lots of us and we'll make lots of noise in Merrion Square. I just want us to be represented fairly. I want both the students themselves and the TDs to respect our power to vote. Last time around the pensioners blew us out of the water. Why? They vote. They got out and marched all over the country.

And here comes the really unpopular viewpoint, what do the pensioners offer the state? Please resist the knee jerk reaction and consider my point in context. The context is a four year budgetary plan to pick the country off its knees and to prevent the IMF from taking control of our finances. Obviously massive cuts have to be made, in a lot of sectors. I don't expect us to get off without taking a hit, but we are valuable to this plan, we should receive some recognition for our potential to the economy. Every day the papers report a different non-governmental body warning not to cut too severely too soon, to do everything they can to preserve economic growth while making the cuts. Easier said than done I know. At the same time you can't ignore the value of the graduate, and the high standard of Irish graduates and how they contribute hugely to the economy. Over our careers we will on average pay much more tax than non-graduates, and protecting the status of graduates in the country is protecting a large chunk of the tax pool.

Before the recession even kicked off there was concern from multinationals about the dumbing down of Irish graduates, through universities focusing on research to acquire funding and status, but also through increasing class sizes to reduce the cost of teaching. Now the American Chamber of Commerce is warning against education cuts. They have been and will continue to be massively important to our economic growth. We have to listen.

It's late and I'm struggling to stay on point, so I'll conclude, I'm marching. I wish you would too.

P.S. Graduate tax and student loans won't work.

Jonathan · 03-11-2010 01:37AM

Interest payments on the national debt will be roughly €3.9bn this year. That equates to roughly €875 for every man, woman and child in the country, payable every year. This figure is only going to continue rising until such time as we reign in our spending and starting bringing more revenue into Ireland Inc.

Let that sink in for a moment, and then stop and think of what the USI and SU are advocating:

No cuts.
No suggestion of grant reform.
No suggestion of student loans, graduate tax etc.
Just a straight no to everything without suggesting viable alternatives.

Perhaps they should take a look at themselves first and reign in their own spending first. If they did that, then perhaps they could lower their allocation from the student registration fee, and help to lower registration fees that way.

devinejay · 03-11-2010 02:02AM

Jonathan wrote: »

Interest payments on the national debt will be roughly €3.9bn this year. That equates to roughly €875 for every man, woman and child in the country, payable every year. This figure is only going to continue rising until such time as we reign in our spending and starting bringing more revenue into Ireland Inc.

Let that sink in for a moment, and then stop and think of what the USI and SU are advocating:
No cuts.

No suggestion of grant reform.

No suggestion of student loans, graduate tax etc.

Just a straight no to everything without suggesting viable alternatives.

Perhaps they should take a look at themselves first and reign in their own spending first. If they did that, then perhaps they could lower their allocation from the student registration fee, and help to lower registration fees that way.

One of the core points of this march is grant reform. I've seen it mentioned in tandem with the increase in registration fees practically everywhere, I'm surprised you haven't.

Somebody earlier mentioned that the "Education not Emigration" slogan was nonsensical. Perhaps it's not the clearest slogan ever, it does signify the movement away from the negativity of the last slogan, one I personally hated. The fact is that we are marching on a few key points, but under a banner that asks that the education system as a whole be protected. How often to protesters offer viable alternatives? Did the pensioners carry banners detailing HSE reform plans that preserve the health card but save money on administration bloat? No. They just said no. That's the point of protesting, to demonstrate dissatisfaction, and the point of our democratic system is that when we say we're not happy, the politicians who are supposed to represent us get together and try and find a solution.

The reason nobody suggests graduate tax and student loans is because they're harmful to the education system. Also you've shot yourself in the foot by mentioning state debt because all they'll do is exacerbate state debt at this crucial time. Graduate tax systems return little or no money for a few years, and no significant money for ten years. During which time the burden is entirely on the government. Student loans? Where does that money come from? Who pays the interest on that? New Zealand has a graduate tax system, and they're currently something like €15Bn out of pocket through emigration. If things are that bad in such isolated southern hemisphere state, imagine what it'll be like with us? We're so seamlessly integrated with the EU that emigration to avoid graduate tax with be like a holiday for most.

Also there's the pact that the people who don't think they're going to run out on their taxes, those who stay the distance, start to worry about how they're going to pay back the debt, and so a largely disproportionate amount of people study to become lawyers and doctors so they can pay off their debt faster. This throws the education system out of balance, meaning careers vital to our export market will suffer.

aas · 03-11-2010 02:06AM

Jonathan wrote: »

Interest payments on the national debt will be roughly €3.9bn this year. That equates to roughly €875 for every man, woman and child in the country, payable every year. This figure is only going to continue rising until such time as we reign in our spending and starting bringing more revenue into Ireland Inc.

Let that sink in for a moment, and then stop and think of what the USI and SU are advocating:
No cuts.

No suggestion of grant reform.

No suggestion of student loans, graduate tax etc.

Just a straight no to everything without suggesting viable alternatives.

Perhaps they should take a look at themselves first and reign in their own spending first. If they did that, then perhaps they could lower their allocation from the student registration fee, and help to lower registration fees that way.

The SU takings from the registration fee is something like €80, it's unlikely to make or break someone's ability to pay for college. They refuse more cuts because last time we had cuts tutorial hours got slashed. Student loans are just deferring the problem to 4 years time when the expected taxable income of a new generation of earners disappears into our ****ty banks.
What do you suggest they suggest? The whole point of the SU is to represent students, and there doesn't appear to be any clear consensus from them on what to do, whereas the resistance to fees and registration hikes seems pretty clear.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 02:27AM

I've always thought the only purpose of the SU was to massage a few egregiously inflated ego's who have an overblown sense of their own wit or intelligence with pretensions to national politics (Just think of John Mc Guirk)

The whole thing should be rethought from the ground up, there is nothing more annoying than election time when all the hacks mutate and form one despicable mass.

gearoidof · 03-11-2010 02:38AM

rc28 wrote: »

Right well it will be interesting trying to find the individual who left blood on the walls and broke furniture. The guy who brought this to the attention of Trinity News (a member of the 'Oversight Commission' in the SU, whatever that is) said that the room which was damaged "was the party room" and "got completely trashed".

This guy then goes on to say that the students got angry after security tried to take the drink off them and "extra damage happened because of this". It's not really a wonder to me then that "security were being bitches" as he put it. WTF!! He's objecting to the fact that security were trying to stop drunken twats causing further damage??These are the people that represent us :eek:

Kevin Byrne didn't bring this up to Trinity News, he was implicated in the damage because it was his room that was trashed.
And I presume he was drunk when they decided to trash the room in revenge at the security, so they weren't exactly fully rational.
The event probably would have gone a lot smoother(i.e. no damage) if the organizers had told everyone what would happen that night, i.e. that there would be security checking upstairs and confiscating alcohol.

2ndly, the oversight commission's job is to make sure the sabbats do their job, so he doesn't represent you, technically.

--
On topic: If grant reform is the real purpose of the protest today, then the SU has gotten its message across badly.

Pet · 03-11-2010 02:40AM

Denerick wrote: »

I've always thought the only purpose of the SU was to massage a few egregiously inflated ego's who have an overblown sense of their own wit or intelligence with pretensions to national politics (Just think of John Mc Guirk)

The whole thing should be rethought from the ground up, there is nothing more annoying than election time when all the hacks mutate and form one despicable mass.

A good effort, but falling short of your usual standard, and lacking cohesion. II.2.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 02:42AM

Pet wrote: »

A good effort, but falling short of your usual standard, and lacking cohesion. II.2.

Can I appeal this result? Admittedly it was a half hearted effort, but I'm tired, and the American election is claiming my attention. I deserved 62ish at least.

Tragedy · 03-11-2010 02:55AM

Dubs wrote: »

I'm sorry, you call bull**** about what? Look, I'm sure if the odd 400,000 (?) people on the dole at the moment out actively looking for jobs (and I know not all of them are actively looking but a hell of a lot are) were in your circle of friends then the employment crisis in Ireland would be over but unfortunately we can't all be so lucky.

The vast majority of the 400,000 aren't looking for part time/casual work are they? In fact, the vast majority of the 400,000 either aren't looking for work at all, or are looking for it in specific fields/areas.

If a student manages to get a job that they can pay for college with, well then well for them. But there just are not enough available to cater for everyone, despite how many of your friends may have them.

According to who? Anecdotally, I don't know anyone who hasn't managed to find a part time job while in college. Clearly, anecdotally, you do - what makes you right and me wrong? You don't have any reports, statistics or figures do you?(and I'm not claiming to have any myself mind

)

And on a side note, the Landsdowne Road jobs aren't enough to pay your way through college. They're a bit of pocket money, nothing too much more.

I saw the SU bandying around some figure like students are living on €6.80 a week with current grant system etc etc. Sure all they need is 1 hour a week in the aviva to treble that!

My point, was that people who are dropping out in 6th week of college shouldn't have gone in the first place. Why did they? What were they thinking would happen? Why didn't they delay it a year, try get some savings if for nothing else but to get a low interest Credit Union student loan?

aas wrote: »

You're saying that not having money to pay for cost of living, registration, accommodation, etc, is no excuse

I said knowing you can't afford to go to college and going anyway is no excuse.

Big difference, and I hope you can see that.

Look, personal responsibility is a big deal for me and maybe isn't so much for some of you. Would it be great if everyone got to go to college at 18 and not worry at all? Sure!
Am I happy that people go to college knowing they can't support themselves for more than a month rather than trying to get a job while deferring or whatever? Not really

and then going on to say that you know people that go work for years just to go to college. So clearly the people with wealthy parents have far less barriers to entering third-level education.

People with middle class parents have it toughest unfortunately, they get no grant and parents can't afford to give them much support but.. these are a minority of the 48% who do pay fees.

Note that whether or not you have wealthy parents is (I hope this is obvious) no reflection on you, your right to an education, etc, so this is a distinctly unfair situation.

Are you proposing that the government covers the cost of living of every single student in Ireland?(rent, food, travel, books etc)
I believe in free tuition, no registration fees and significant means tested grant reform but I don't believe in paying all costs that a student incurs. To the best of my knowledge, no other country has a system like that either?

Increasing the registration fee will make it more unfair.

52%(Or was it 48%?) of students don't pay registration fees. That means 52% of students are either farmers, mature students or their parents earn under €52,000 a year.

Either way, it's a huge proportion so I don't see an increase in registration fees suddenly skewing/changing the demographics of who goes to college.

A far more equitable solution to the whole mess would be to simply increase the tax rate on the upper bracket of tax.

Firstly, I don't think you understand what equitable means. If you did, you wouldn't be suggesting that one segment of society pays for every other segment.
Secondly, upping the tax rate on high earners by any significant amount is well known and proven to be a damaging and destructive act that leads to a decrease in tax revenue - in effect you tax the successful, innovative and those who create the most wealth/jobs out of the country.

When the majority of workers pays zero tax and the majority of students pay no fees, how is it in any way equitable to yet again shift the burden on to high earners who already shoulder most of it?

Again, I'm for free tuition and no registration fees(after all, we'll pay for free third level education for the next 40-50 years with income tax) but I'm not for making the rich pay for it all on their lonesome either.

Anothernight wrote:

I seriously wish I was one of your friends then, if they all find it so easy to find a job. Been looking for ages as have a lot of my friends.

Even some of the first years who are living in Halls in my course have jobs in Dublin already, and they haven't had long to look.
I don't mean to sound condescending(because I've been unemployed a good bit!), but how hard have you been looking? How much pounding the pavement handing cv's into every single business you come across? In this climate, more than ever, it's dedication and sheer bloody persistence which will make the difference.

03-11-2010 10:30AM

I started looking for a job after christmas, hoping I might find one for the summer. I couldn't find one anywhere. Not in the city, not around where I live, not in the neighbouring towns. I sent in more than one CV to a load of places. I went in in person, I asked for the manager, I sent emails, I tried to talk to as many people as possible. A good few places wouldn't even take the CV off me, I had to be really pushy about it sometimes. I got all of one interview, which came to nothing. Of all the emails I sent, I got 3 replies. Two replies were automated "we got your application, if you don't hear from us we don't want you" type things. One reply I got was for a shop opening in town in 2 months time, I thought I was in well early, but the reply came only a week later saying they had over 1200 applications already and that I'd hear from them if I got it. From a shop that wasn't even opening for months! I finally found a job in a little tourist shop. They usually hire a few summer staff but they only hired me this year and even then could only offer me 1-3 days a week. I was on call every single day and yet some weeks I only got called in for 6 hours. Not much work but I had to take what I could get. Considering the fact that I can't save all of my wages, how many years would it take, earning 50 euro a week, to save up enough money to go to college for four years unaided and with higher reg fees?

There aren't many jobs out there and if these cuts come to the worst, there'll be a very large proportion of 18-25 year olds who will be unemployed and upping the competition for work. It's not possible for everyone to take a few years off and then come back financially prepared. Unfortunately not everyone can afford to go to college, but to make things even worse will cripple the people who thought they could a few years ago. I can afford college at the moment because I get the grant, but if I cant next year, I'll have spent two years in a course I was led to believe I could afford. It's not a case of thick hyped up 18 year olds jumping into college without thinking, it's that in the current state of things they can afford it, but now with the changes they can't.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 10:40AM

Stop being overly dramatic. The British system doesn't have you paying anything back until your on 20k per annum +, I don't think your 50 euro per week job would qualify. For god sake, you cannot seriously expect the taxpayer to continue to bankroll a hedonistic middle class lifestyle in these profoundly difficult economic times?

devinejay · 03-11-2010 11:33AM

Denerick wrote: »

Stop being overly dramatic. The British system doesn't have you paying anything back until your on 20k per annum +, I don't think your 50 euro per week job would qualify. For god sake, you cannot seriously expect the taxpayer to continue to bankroll a hedonistic middle class lifestyle in these profoundly difficult economic times?

Almost forgot why I stopped posting on boards there for a minute

JonJoeDali · 03-11-2010 11:41AM

devinejay wrote: »

Also there's the pact that the people who don't think they're going to run out on their taxes, those who stay the distance, start to worry about how they're going to pay back the debt, and so a largely disproportionate amount of people study to become lawyers and doctors so they can pay off their debt faster. This throws the education system out of balance, meaning careers vital to our export market will suffer.

In fairness, the salaries for lawyers are pretty crap these days. Lawyers essentially work for free to "get their foot in the door". It's only if you've demonstrated talent do you get paid well. Blackhall Place/Kings Inns are overflowing with substandard and mediocre 20-somethings full of middle class aspiration and no legal background in their family whatsoever. Still, there's plenty of money to be made from them.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 12:13PM

JonJoeDali wrote: »

In fairness, the salaries for lawyers are pretty crap these days. Lawyers essentially work for free to "get their foot in the door". It's only if you've demonstrated talent do you get paid well. Blackhall Place/Kings Inns are overflowing with substandard and mediocre 20-somethings full of middle class aspiration and no legal background in their family whatsoever. Still, there's plenty of money to be made from them.

The glass ceiling in the legal profession is well and truly air tight. The only people who can afford to work for nothing for a couple of years are the sons and daughters of the upper middle class, I doubt you'll see many inner city boys climbing that particularly greasy pole.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 12:15PM

devinejay wrote: »

Almost forgot why I stopped posting on boards there for a minute

Its a serious point. Far too many students, Trinity students in particular live in this make believe la la land, not one with a massive deficit that will condemn my children to poverty and emigration.

Our higher education system needs funding. I'm not necessarily saying fee's should be introduced. But we shouldn't be afraid to look at it and no-one gains by the SU and the student body at large denying reality.

devinejay · 03-11-2010 12:36PM

I think all sides can be accused of being overly dramatic here, after all, it's the internet.

Hedonism? Do you realise how much dole money and children's allowance is spent in pubs and off licences? The fact of the matter is that when the government offers support to whatever group, be it education or social welfare, it is done in good faith, and in the knowledge that it's liable to be mispent. If grant money is to be spent on Jager-bombs, so be it, as long as the people who really need it get it also.

If 100 or 1000 extra students get to college next year because of this march, then in ten or twenty years time they'll be the one paying the taxes to help out with that massive deficit and your children's poverty.

Jonathan · 03-11-2010 01:32PM

devinejay wrote: »

One of the core points of this march is grant reform. I've seen it mentioned in tandem with the increase in registration fees practically everywhere, I'm surprised you haven't.

I haven't. Poor campaign if that was their intention.

devinejay wrote: »

The reason nobody suggests graduate tax and student loans is because they're harmful to the education system. Also you've shot yourself in the foot by mentioning state debt because all they'll do is exacerbate state debt at this crucial time. Graduate tax systems return little or no money for a few years, and no significant money for ten years. During which time the burden is entirely on the government. Student loans? Where does that money come from? Who pays the interest on that? New Zealand has a graduate tax system, and they're currently something like €15Bn out of pocket through emigration. If things are that bad in such isolated southern hemisphere state, imagine what it'll be like with us? We're so seamlessly integrated with the EU that emigration to avoid graduate tax with be like a holiday for most.

I have never claimed that we should use a student loan system for paying registration fees. That should stay, and be raised if necessary.

The government should use graduate tax or student loan as a method of recovering some of the tuition fees that are currently paid by someone else's taxes, most likely taxes paid by someone else who was never given the opportunity to go to college.

People have family and friends here in Ireland. I can't foresee the whole student population emigrating every year to avoid taxes.

devinejay wrote: »

Also there's the pact that the people who don't think they're going to run out on their taxes, those who stay the distance, start to worry about how they're going to pay back the debt, and so a largely disproportionate amount of people study to become lawyers and doctors so they can pay off their debt faster. This throws the education system out of balance, meaning careers vital to our export market will suffer.

The law of supply and demand would take care of this imbalance in its own time.

Mark200 · 03-11-2010 03:56PM

Dubs wrote: »

Which would be a lovely system, but it's not the topic at hand. Fees aren't going to be re-introduced any time soon, the registration fee is going to be increased.

I was simply pointing out that the introduction of a loan system or graduate tax could actually help students, despite the poster that I was replying to thinking otherwise.

aas wrote: »

A far more equitable solution to the whole mess would be to simply increase the tax rate on the upper bracket of tax. People might think it's unfair that adults with no children have to subsidise the education of others, but it's no different from your taxes paying for the healthcare benefits of smokers. Having a university system that is accessible to everyone is beneficial to society and worth paying for, in the same way healthcare, public transport, etc, is.

You can't just raise the tax rate on the well-off whenever you need more money. It's not a long-term solution. Increasing the tax rate by a reasonable amount would no where near cover the deficit. Cuts will still have to be made.

Also, to cover the registration fee of €1500 for every student you'd have to tax every single person in Ireland about €93 (assuming there are 250,000 students... which is the amount the USI says they represent). But if you were only to tax taxpayers (as opposed to 4year olds, or low earners), then that would mean the tax would be closer to €300. That's just to pay for the registration fee....

(Hope I got my maths right).

devinejay wrote: »

The reason nobody suggests graduate tax and student loans is because they're harmful to the education system. Also you've shot yourself in the foot by mentioning state debt because all they'll do is exacerbate state debt at this crucial time. Graduate tax systems return little or no money for a few years, and no significant money for ten years. During which time the burden is entirely on the government. Student loans? Where does that money come from?

I never understand when someone cries that a graduate tax or loan system would cost the Government money. The Government is already paying everyones fees (excluding reg fee). The only difference is that a loan or graduate tax system would mean that after a few years, when you're earning enough, they ask for the fees back. The only cost would be administrative costs. And if they put a low interest rate on the loan, then they'd easily make that back.

devinejay · 03-11-2010 03:58PM

Jonathan wrote: »

I haven't. Poor campaign if that was their intention.

I have never claimed that we should use a student loan system for paying registration fees. That should stay, and be raised if necessary.

The government should use graduate tax or student loan as a method of recovering some of the tuition fees that are currently paid by someone else's taxes, most likely taxes paid by someone else who was never given the opportunity to go to college.

People have family and friends here in Ireland. I can't foresee the whole student population emigrating every year to avoid taxes.

The law of supply and demand would take care of this imbalance in its own time.

Graduate taxes amount in punishing students for choosing to go to college. We contribute more than it costs to educate us. American direct investment contributes around 3 billion euro to the Irish exchequer every year in corporate tax alone, not to mention payrole etc. Do you think they're here for the weather? They came here because the initial abolishion of tution fees resulted in a surge in high standard graduates. There are other factors to why they came, but the cheap asian labour market means that our education standards is our best selling point now.

Mark200 · 03-11-2010 04:01PM

devinejay wrote: »

Graduate taxes amount in punishing students for choosing to go to college. We contribute more than it costs to educate us. American direct investment contributes around 3 billion euro to the Irish exchequer every year in corporate tax alone, not to mention payrole etc. Do you think they're here for the weather? They came here because the initial abolishion of tution fees resulted in a surge in high standard graduates. There are other factors to why they came, but the cheap asian labour market means that our education standards is our best selling point now.

Ireland has one of the lowest corporate taxes in the world. As well as that, we actually have loop-holes in our tax system that other countries don't have which allows them to transfer their money to territories where they have to pay practically no tax. So even those that do come here rarely have to pay our full tax rate.

See here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1022/1224281723468.html

GOOGLE CUT its taxes by $3.1 billion (€2.2 billion) in the last three years by using a strategy known as the “Double Irish”, under which it shuttled foreign profits through its Irish operation to Bermuda.

Google’s “income shifting” helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 per cent, the lowest of the top five US technology companies, according to regulatory filings in six countries.

Google’s tax reduction method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally move profits in and out of subsidiaries here, eventually lodging them in island havens that levy no corporate income taxes.

Companies that use the “Double Irish” arrangement – so named because it relies on two Irish companies – avoid taxes at home and abroad.

Facebook is preparing a similar structure that will send earnings from Ireland to the Cayman Islands, according to its filings in the Caymans and Ireland.

rjt · 03-11-2010 04:13PM

devinejay wrote: »

Graduate taxes amount in punishing students for choosing to go to college. We contribute more than it costs to educate us. American direct investment contributes around 3 billion euro to the Irish exchequer every year in corporate tax alone, not to mention payrole etc. Do you think they're here for the weather? They came here because the initial abolishion of tution fees resulted in a surge in high standard graduates. There are other factors to why they came, but the cheap asian labour market means that our education standards is our best selling point now.

Aren't a large number of american companies (tech ones in particular) here because it's a tax haven? I really doubt we'll lose all that money if the number of people going to college drops a bit.

In any case, we gain more than it costs to educate us - even if we pay it back in taxes afterwards we're still making a profit. Even if the graduate tax only partly covers it, it's more fair than just increasing taxes blindly on the higher earners.

If the government can afford to not raise the reg fee, than they can afford to not raise the reg fee and instead tax graduates a bit higher when they leave. That'll start a dependable, fair tax stream for the government starting in a year (I know there's a legal argument whereby they can't bring in fees for those currently in the system, but I'd imagine they can offer an optional tax instead of an immediate payment of the increased reg fee).

Something has to be cut. If the protest is about "we're a huge (potential) voter base, cut something else before you cut us", then fair enough. But it's a matter of priorities. And I'm all for cutting third level funding instead of healthcare, social welfare or primary/secondary education.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 04:17PM

'High Quality Graduates' Ha! The Irish higher education system is not exceptional, it is on a par with most European countries. Lets not deceive ourselves any further with delusions of competancy. The average Irish student lives in a vacuum in a constant denial of reality.

REPSOC1916 · 03-11-2010 07:48PM

devinejay wrote: »

Almost forgot why I stopped posting on boards there for a minute

Then that anti-SU hack Dennerick comes along.

tolosenc · 03-11-2010 08:53PM

devinejay wrote: »

our education standards [are] our best selling point now.

So the best course of action is therefore to continue the degradation in quality due to the massive under-funding? And no, the government shouldn't be obliged to pay for education. There is NO MONEY. It's a tough reality, but it is reality.

aas · 03-11-2010 10:15PM

Tragedy wrote: »

I said knowing you can't afford to go to college and going anyway is no excuse.

Big difference, and I hope you can see that.

But that's the thing: they came thinking they'd receive the grant that they're entitled to but it's being withheld.

Look, personal responsibility is a big deal for me and maybe isn't so much for some of you. Would it be great if everyone got to go to college at 18 and not worry at all? Sure!

Ok, so let's make it so that people that don't have the funds to attend college at 18 are given them?

Firstly, I don't think you understand what equitable means. If you did, you wouldn't be suggesting that one segment of society pays for every other segment.

Except I explained that everyone in society benefits from people acquiring a third-level education, so it's perfectly fair to expect them to pay for it.

Secondly, upping the tax rate on high earners by any significant amount is well known and proven to be a damaging and destructive act that leads to a decrease in tax revenue - in effect you tax the successful, innovative and those who create the most wealth/jobs out of the country.

No it isn't.

When the majority of workers pays zero tax and the majority of students pay no fees, how is it in any way equitable to yet again shift the burden on to high earners who already shoulder most of it?

Because they're high earners. Why would you feel bad for them being taxed more than everyone else when by definition they earn more than everyone else.

Again, I'm for free tuition and no registration fees(after all, we'll pay for free third level education for the next 40-50 years with income tax) but I'm not for making the rich pay for it all on their lonesome either.

Why not?

Jonathan · 03-11-2010 10:21PM

aas wrote: »

Tragedy wrote: »

Secondly, upping the tax rate on high earners by any significant amount is well known and proven to be a damaging and destructive act that leads to a decrease in tax revenue - in effect you tax the successful, innovative and those who create the most wealth/jobs out of the country.

No it isn't.

Your knowledge of economics is laffable. :pac:

anothernight · 03-11-2010 10:26PM

Tragedy wrote: »

Even some of the first years who are living in Halls in my course have jobs in Dublin already, and they haven't had long to look.
I don't mean to sound condescending(because I've been unemployed a good bit!), but how hard have you been looking? How much pounding the pavement handing cv's into every single business you come across? In this climate, more than ever, it's dedication and sheer bloody persistence which will make the difference.

Dw, I don't think you sounded condescending

Looking very hard, and yes, including the usual going into every shop handing out CVs (which a lot of them won't even accept btw). The thing is, long college hours means that I'm not exactly flexible for work hours, so that's a massive impediment when you're up against so many other unemployed people. It's the same for a lot of my friends. I do know people that are currently working, but they've either had the job for a couple of years, or they do very few hours in their course so they're more flexible for work.

I don't think people should be whining about having to pay, but I do wish the government didn't try to bring in fees on the sly. Would it really be that hard to implement a system where we pay after we've our degree and are earning above a determined income threshold? It'd be great to get our education for free, but I think it's quite obvious by now that it's not working.

aas · 03-11-2010 10:28PM

Jonathan wrote: »

I haven't. Poor campaign if that was their intention.

It was on the back of like 20,000 t-shirts today.

Mark200 wrote: »

Also, to cover the registration fee of €1500 for every student you'd have to tax every single person in Ireland about €93 (assuming there are 250,000 students... which is the amount the USI says they represent). But if you were only to tax taxpayers (as opposed to 4year olds, or low earners), then that would mean the tax would be closer to €300. That's just to pay for the registration fee....

€300 would be far more than the state would get were it to put the upper bracket of tax back to the 2006 level of 42%; you know, before they 'encouraged spending' by slashing taxes, creating a bubble that led to the recession we're finding ourselves in.

I never understand when someone cries that a graduate tax or loan system would cost the Government money. The Government is already paying everyones fees (excluding reg fee). The only difference is that a loan or graduate tax system would mean that after a few years, when you're earning enough, they ask for the fees back. The only cost would be administrative costs. And if they put a low interest rate on the loan, then they'd easily make that back.

The system is already in place really, the government is paid back for its investment by the higher taxes paid by graduates, because they (on average) end up earning higher incomes.

Students' Union and hot air

Comments