Students' Union and hot air

aas · 03-11-2010 10:29PM

Jonathan wrote: »

Your knowledge of economics is laffable. :pac:

Mark200 · 03-11-2010 10:33PM

aas wrote: »

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

Was that not "protect the grant"?

That's different to "reform the grant".

aas wrote: »

€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.

Great, and then what about the cuts in healthcare. Just up the tax rate on the wealthy a bit more? Pensions? Same solution?

aas wrote: »

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.

You can't pick and choose what your taxes go towards. And coming out with that isn't a reason as to why a loan system or graduate tax wouldn't work.

Tragedy · 03-11-2010 10:40PM

aas wrote: »

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

Who said the grant is being withheld? I don't recall that being brought up in thread before, so if I missed it let me know!

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

Again, as I just said, I don't believe the government should cover every single cost of people attending college. And again, I'm asking if you know of any other country that does do that?

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.

You didn't explain, you stated that it was so. Stating something is so isn't the same as explaining.

Fwiw, the richest in society have the least to gain by universal education.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

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, you don't seem to understand what equitable is.
Again, I suggest you look up it's meaning before posting about how 'equitable' something is.

It's equitable that the more you earn, the more you pay, it's in no way equitable that because you earn more, you pay everything for those who don't earn as much. In an equitable society, everyone plays a part and pays a part of the burden, and everyone has an investment(however small).

Why not?

Because it isn't fair, just or equitable, will lead to a brain drain and will damage efforts at attracting more FDI.

Any company setting up an office/subsidiary in Ireland will transfer key staff to Ireland. With an abnormally high tax burden on them, they simply wont(and don't) come.

amacachi · 03-11-2010 10:42PM

aas wrote: »

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.

Society would benefit if they gave me money to stop raping people but I don't think that would be fair.

aas wrote: »

What's your point, that despite our low rate in 2004 we managed to get as much Corporation tax as the UK and more than Germany as a percentage of GDP? People need to see that our low tax rate makes up for our crappy location and infrastructure, it can't also make up for ludicrously high wages, hence so many companies pulling out.

aas · 03-11-2010 10:45PM

amacachi wrote: »

What's your point, that despite our low rate in 2004 we managed to get as much Corporation tax as the UK and more than Germany as a percentage of GDP? People need to see that our low tax rate makes up for our crappy location and infrastructure, it can't also make up for ludicrously high wages, hence so many companies pulling out.

The point is that the Laffer curve has no basis in reality, and should be completely stricken from the discussion.

Denerick · 03-11-2010 10:46PM

That chart is a load of crap, Norway has such a high yield because of oil revenues, overall it doesn't take into account the national distinctiveness of individual economies (Such as resource rich nations like Norway and Australia who will operate profits regardless of local market conditions)

Tragedy · 03-11-2010 10:46PM

aas wrote: »

The point is that the Laffer curve has no basis in reality, and should be completely stricken from the discussion.

That can be as easily said for your "Make the rich pay for everything, they can afford it and they know it's equitable".

amacachi · 03-11-2010 10:47PM

aas wrote: »

The point is that the Laffer curve has no basis in reality, and should be completely stricken from the discussion.

It does have a basis is reality but it's not the only thing to take into account, especially seeing as it's our only advantage when competing internationally.

aas · 03-11-2010 10:52PM

Tragedy wrote: »

You didn't explain, you stated that it was so. Stating something is so isn't the same as explaining.

Woops, forgot you were a mature student.

Again, you don't seem to understand what equitable is.
Again, I suggest you look up it's meaning before posting about how 'equitable' something is.

It's equitable that the more you earn, the more you pay, it's in no way equitable that because you earn more, you pay everything for those who don't earn as much. In an equitable society, everyone plays a part and pays a part of the burden, and everyone has an investment(however small).

Characterised by equity? I personally think one of the signs of an equitable society would be everyone having the same amount of money to spend. I would see courses of action that lead to this as more equitable than courses of action that don't.

aas · 03-11-2010 10:55PM

Denerick wrote: »

That chart is a load of crap, Norway has such a high yield because of oil revenues, overall it doesn't take into account the national distinctiveness of individual economies (Such as resource rich nations like Norway and Australia who will operate profits regardless of local market conditions)

That's why it's so brilliant, it shows how little difference the tax rate actually makes compared to the 'national distinctiveness of individual economies', such as, say, having a well-educated workforce which distinguishes itself from others by drawing from all classes of society, thanks to free education.

amacachi · 03-11-2010 11:01PM

aas wrote: »

I personally think one of the signs of an equitable society would be everyone having the same amount of money to spend.

Thank Christ that at least for now you're in the minority.

PurpleFistMixer · 03-11-2010 11:23PM

amacachi wrote: »

Thank Christ that at least for now you're in the minority.

amacachi · 03-11-2010 11:39PM

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Before I reply I just want to get straight what you mean by that.

PurpleFistMixer · 03-11-2010 11:44PM

It seems pretty self explanatory, does it not?

amacachi · 03-11-2010 11:48PM

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

It seems pretty self explanatory, does it not?

What, that because I don't think that we should all have the same income regardless of personal abilities that I'm a racist America hick who can't spell Socialism but managed to fluke it up til now?

PurpleFistMixer · 03-11-2010 11:57PM

amacachi wrote: »

What, that because I don't think that we should all have the same income regardless of personal abilities that I'm a racist America hick who can't spell Socialism but managed to fluke it up til now?

If you say so!

aas · 04-11-2010 12:00AM

amacachi wrote: »

What, that because I don't think that we should all have the same income regardless of personal abilities that I'm a racist America hick who can't spell Socialism but managed to fluke it up til now?

Why are you drawing attributes like 'racist', 'american' and 'hick'(-ish?) from opposition to Socialism?

Ahoyhoy · 04-11-2010 12:01AM

Tragedy wrote: »

I do care.
I'm sorry, maybe more of them should have gotten a summer job before college. Or deferred and worked a year to gain some extra income.

If they've ran out of money after 6 weeks, what the hell were they thinking in the first place? Just because college is 'free', doesn't mean you can afford to live while attending 'free' education and doesn't mean you have to go straight away.

It must be heartbreaking to have to drop out already because of no money, but I don't have any sympathy. College is a choice. Choosing to attend knowing you have zero financial security and probably won't last a semester is a choice.

I have plenty of friends who've worked until 20/21 just to go to college for the first time, and these are people who:
a) Get no form of grant
b) Get no sort of assitance from parents, despite parents income denying them a grant.

Are you actually kidding? Seriously? Just which summer jobs are they meant to get? And what job are they meant to get in the mean time to make money to go to college? And at eighteen did you have any idea what financial security was? Did you or do you now have any idea really how much it will cost you to get through college by yourself for a year? How are people supposed to find out how to check that out before attending college? These people have no idea who to turn to. Maybe you're willing to help are you?

Also someone made a point about the grant, people go to college expecting to receive a grant. They have often looked up the reckonable income brackets because one of the few things the HEA have done right, as a result of lobbying by SUs around the country btw, is www.studentfinance.ie. What they don't know is that their application will take ages and they may not receive a payment until late in the academic year (a guy in my friend's class got his on the last day of term before summer hols, wtf?). Also someone said that USI are saying nothing about reforming the grant - BS, they've been calling for a central awarding body for since 2007. There's even a bill in the Dail about it.

I know blind hatred is more fun, but how about a little informed criticism now and then? USI ****s up a lot I'll grant you and the SU is not efficient with the way it spends money but they do a good job on a lot of things that are easy for you to ignore.

Ahoyhoy · 04-11-2010 12:02AM

true-or-false wrote: »

(which I also don't get, unless you're on crutches the JCR isn't that far away)?

This is very true; I just thought it was more of a worthy case for the SU than tomorrows protest.

FYI the SU got an extra lunch room in James' two years ago. Have you ever heard of the GMB? You can have lunch in there.

amacachi · 04-11-2010 12:05AM

aas wrote: »

Why are you drawing attributes like 'racist', 'american' and 'hick'(-ish?) from opposition to Socialism?

The pic PurpleFistMixer posted is of a tea partier, something I most certainly am not.

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

If you say so!

Very classy altogether.

Tragedy · 04-11-2010 01:08AM

Ahoyhoy wrote: »

Are you actually kidding? Seriously? Just which summer jobs are they meant to get? And what job are they meant to get in the mean time to make money to go to college?

Are you actually kidding? Seriously? Just which summer jobs are they not meant to get? And what job are they not meant to get in the mean time to not make money to go to college?

Ahhh, it's so wonderfully easy to post utter ****e while being angry and righteous.

And at eighteen did you have any idea what financial security was?

Yes, as my parents were(and still are) broke and couldn't afford to give me anything towards college.

Did you

Relatively, but I was living at home so I only needed to figure out books+lunches+a bit of spending money. Even if you're moving up to Dublin, there's tons of reports on how much it costs the average student to live in Dublin that get mentioned in the newspaper every year around LC results.

or do you now have any idea really how much it will cost you to get through college by yourself for a year?

Yes.

How are people supposed to find out how to check that out before attending college? These people have no idea who to turn to. Maybe you're willing to help are you?

Again, plenty of reports statistics and information available on it. More angry righteous nonsense with nothing whatsoever substantive or informative?
Why yes.
Yes it is.

Also someone made a point about the grant, people go to college expecting to receive a grant. They have often looked up the reckonable income brackets because one of the few things the HEA have done right, as a result of lobbying by SUs around the country btw, is www.studentfinance.ie.

If people apply in good time, they'll receive confirmation of grant well before they start College.

What they don't know is that their application will take ages and they may not receive a payment until late in the academic year (a guy in my friend's class got his on the last day of term before summer hols, wtf?).

It's paid in 3 installments, if your grant isn't processed by the first - you'll likely get two installments when it's time for you to receive the second. Either someone ****ed up in his case, or he ****ed up - but it's nothing to do with the grant system, it's to do with the individuals working in the grant office.

I know blind hatred is more fun, but how about a little informed criticism now and then? USI ****s up a lot I'll grant you and the SU is not efficient with the way it spends money but they do a good job on a lot of things that are easy for you to ignore.

Ah, isn't irony wonderful. Informed criticism? You wouldn't know what that was if a Garda in riot gear batoned you in the head with it

PS: What great jobs have the SU been doing this year/last year, since you're so well informed?

04-11-2010 01:56AM

Tragedy wrote: »

Who said the grant is being withheld? I don't recall that being brought up in thread before, so if I missed it let me know!

Tragedy wrote: »

If people apply in good time, they'll receive confirmation of grant well before they start College.

It's paid in 3 installments, if your grant isn't processed by the first - you'll likely get two installments when it's time for you to receive the second.

Well, if these cuts go through, the confirmed grants will be being withheld. The grant is confirmed at the start of the year (in most cases) but any changes made to it in the budget are executed straight away. Last year my grant was confirmed at the start of the year, I got my first installment before the budget and then after the budget, my second and third installments which had already been confirmed at the previous level, were cut to the new level. I was never informed that this was how it worked. Thankfully, the change didn't affect me in a huge way. This year again, I've been confirmed as getting a grant of a certain amount, but after the budget (as I now know from experience), I may be getting a significantly smaller amount, even though I started college thinking I was assured enough to get me through. Who knows, we might be asked for half of the new registration fee at re-registration! How were the people who started college this year supposed to know that the government were going to change the rules half way through the game?

(and no, I will NOT stop being dramatic, all of you stop first!)

tolosenc · 04-11-2010 03:18AM

aas wrote: »

I personally think one of the signs of an equitable society would be everyone having the same amount of money to spend. I would see courses of action that lead to this as more equitable than courses of action that don't.

I think you're confusing equity with communism, there...

aas wrote: »

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

Pity half of those were stacked in cardboard boxes.

aas wrote: »

€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.

A 1% cut in the upper band income tax rate in Ireland did not lead to the worst global economic downturn in living memory. Players is in that big wooden building by Áras an Phiarsaigh if you want dramatics.

JonJoeDali · 04-11-2010 11:11AM

tolosenc wrote: »

I think you're confusing equity with communism, there...

The dogma of "equality" is a euphemism for communism.

Muffin top · 04-11-2010 06:21PM

could the SU not concentrate on the likes of ensuring the library is open over the Christmas break

delta720 · 04-11-2010 06:38PM

Muffin top wrote: »

could the SU not concentrate on the likes of ensuring the library is open over the Christmas break

But how will that get them on the news and make them feel like they're important?

aas · 04-11-2010 06:43PM

tolosenc wrote: »

I think you're confusing equity with communism, there...

Do you think the children of wealthy parents should have advantages over the children of poor parents?

aas · 04-11-2010 06:45PM

delta720 wrote: »

But how will that get them on the news and make them feel like they're important?

If only the SU spent a lot of money on something clearly for the good of the student body that wouldn't be reported on at all, like, say, SHAG week?

Tragedy · 04-11-2010 06:45PM

aas wrote: »

Do you think the children of wealthy parents should have advantages over the children of poor parents?

Children of poor parents get more educational advantage than children of wealthy parents.

Actually, why am I bothering, you'll just come back with more quasi-socialist nonsense(quasi because socialism is completely misrepresented by most people).

aas · 04-11-2010 06:47PM

Tragedy wrote: »

Children of poor parents get more educational advantage than children of wealthy parents.

Actually, why am I bothering, you'll just come back with more quasi-socialist nonsense.

Didn't you just say earlier you couldn't go to college when everyone else did because your parents were broke.

Students' Union and hot air

Comments