More libertarians running amok -- in the UK

[Kulindahr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/europe/10britain.html

So much for equality of opportunity.

I got mine, now screw you!

Great -- another useless link.

Without the ability to actually read the article, I'll have to rely on what you clipped. Based on that....

what does this have to do with libertarians?

 

[rareboy]

I'm not getting the Libertarian thing either.

This was the conservatives and liberals shifting the debt burden for education from the government back onto the shoulders of the individuals, recognizing two facts.

A lot of families have the wherewithal to afford their kids' tuition and have been getting a free ride at the cost of national debt and higher taxes, while the net difference between what students currently pay and what they will be paying (about $40,000), represents a mere fraction of what they will earn in their lifetimes with a good education. With interest, it will account for about 2% of their total projected lifetime income.

The real impact is that a lot of marginalized kids won't get to go to University which, over the long term will result in the closure of some of the smaller schools and eventually to a drop in the number of people in the country with higher education. Something that the western countries can ill afford.

 

[EastMed]

I'm not getting the Libertarian thing either.

This was the conservatives and liberals shifting the debt burden for education from the government back onto the shoulders of the individuals, recognizing two facts.

A lot of families have the wherewithal to afford their kids' tuition and have been getting a free ride at the cost of national debt and higher taxes, while the net difference between what students currently pay and what they will be paying (about $40,000), represents a mere fraction of what they will earn in their lifetimes with a good education. With interest, it will account for about 2% of their total projected lifetime income.

The real impact is that a lot of marginalized kids won't get to go to University which, over the long term will result in the closure of some of the smaller schools and eventually to a drop in the number of people in the country with higher education. Something that the western countries can ill afford.

The UK appears to be pursuing the same policies as the US, leading to further social inequality.
And as always, because of the the meltdown in the financial sector, the poor will pay.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not sure what your problem with the link is.
But you can search for the article: "Protesters Attack Car Carrying Prince Charles" by Robert F. Burns, New York Times, 9 December.


What does this have to do with libertarians?
Are you playing coy?

We have all these libertarians running around insisting that the only role of government should be to protect individuals from the aggression of others. Get rid of government-run fire departments! If you want someone to save your house or business when it catches on fire, buy firefighting insurance -- government shouldn't levy taxes for doing that.

And now we see government shouldn't use tax dollars to support university-level education. If you want a university degree, you should pay for it yourself. Oh? You aren't a trust-fund baby? Your folks are poor -- you can't afford the tuition? Well then, you can apply for loans that you will be paying off for 15 - 20 years after you graduate. And if you don't qualify for loans, maybe you shouldn't go to university, certainly not until you've worked for a few years and saved up enough to afford to go back to school. Hard work will teach you to value that education.

So your position is that everyone should get everything for free -- which really means you believe that lazy folks should be supported by working folks, just because they exist.


Well, in contrast to that, yes, common sense looks libertarian.

 

[thevofl]

I admit to being ignorant here, but don't they have student loans in the UK?

I wouldn't have gotten my PhD if it weren't for the loans, (which I have paid off thank god).

 

[Kulindahr]

I admit to being ignorant here, but don't they have student loans in the UK?

I wouldn't have gotten my PhD if it weren't for the loans, (which I have paid off thank god).

There's some sort of loan system, at least for undergraduates, though I think it's limited to tuition and fees.

 

[EastMed]

There's some sort of loan system, at least for undergraduates, though I think it's limited to tuition and fees.

The average undergraduate loan will come to about $30,000 - $40,000.

 

[Kulindahr]

The average undergraduate loan will come to about $30,000 - $40,000.

In Britain? I sould have expected figures in pounds or euros.

That's after the change, or before?

 

[EastMed]

In Britain? I sould have expected figures in pounds or euros.

That's after the change, or before?

The fees will be variable depending on University, ranging from about £25,000 - £40,000.
With lots of exemptions. I don't like it.

 

[thevofl]

Damn, that's a little bit more than what I paid in the early 90s.

 

[EastMed]

May I add those figures are for the full course (usually 3 years).

 

[unloadonme]

There is a student loan system in the UK which means that any student who wishes to go to university, and is bright enough to secure a place, can do so provided they are willing to repay the loan at a future date. Some students are fortunate enough to have wealthy parents who can obviate the need for a loan, but students from the poorest homes can have loans on the same basis as anyone else if they wish.

Student loans carry a low rate of interest and are only repayable when the graduate is earning a minimum of £15,000 per annum, a figure which the government proposes increasing to £21,000.

The current furore is because the government proposes increasing the maximum amount a university can charge students in tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 per annum. This would mean that some university funding is shifted from general taxation to the students themselves.

The underlying issue is that 30 years ago in the UK, about 10% of 18 year olds went to university. The country could afford to support that and even gave students means-tested maintenance grants. Over the last 30 years, however, the university system has expended to the point where about 45% of 18 year olds go to university and the country can basically no longer afford to pay for it. The increased numbers at university are also of dubious desirability given the attraction of "soft" subjects such as Media Studies over anything with any degree academic rigour.

 

[EastMed]

There is a student loan system in the UK which means that any student who wishes to go to university, and is bright enough to secure a place, can do so provided they are willing to repay the loan at a future date. Some students are fortunate enough to have wealthy parents who can obviate the need for a loan, but students from the poorest homes can have loans on the same basis as anyone else if they wish.

Student loans carry a low rate of interest and are only repayable when the graduate is earning a minimum of £15,000 per annum, a figure which the government proposes increasing to £21,000.

The current furore is because the government proposes increasing the maximum amount a university can charge students in tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 per annum. This would mean that some university funding is shifted from general taxation to the students themselves.

The underlying issue is that 30 years ago in the UK, about 10% of 18 year olds went to university. The country could afford to support that and even gave students means-tested maintenance grants. Over the last 30 years, however, the university system has expended to the point where about 45% of 18 year olds go to university and the country can basically no longer afford to pay for it. The increased numbers at university are also of dubious desirability given the attraction of "soft" subjects such as Media Studies over anything with any degree academic rigour.

The country could afford relatively low tuition fees if it didn't have to bail out the banks.
These fees will be a deterrence to some students from poor backgrounds, thus leading to greater social inequality (despite the exemptions).
I agree there are some soft subjects at University which are a total waste of time , money and resources.
I don't know if Media Studies is among those. After all, we live in a media rich world.

 

[rareboy]

There is a student loan system in the UK which means that any student who wishes to go to university, and is bright enough to secure a place, can do so provided they are willing to repay the loan at a future date. Some students are fortunate enough to have wealthy parents who can obviate the need for a loan, but students from the poorest homes can have loans on the same basis as anyone else if they wish.

Student loans carry a low rate of interest and are only repayable when the graduate is earning a minimum of £15,000 per annum, a figure which the government proposes increasing to £21,000.

The current furore is because the government proposes increasing the maximum amount a university can charge students in tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 per annum. This would mean that some university funding is shifted from general taxation to the students themselves.

The underlying issue is that 30 years ago in the UK, about 10% of 18 year olds went to university. The country could afford to support that and even gave students means-tested maintenance grants. Over the last 30 years, however, the university system has expended to the point where about 45% of 18 year olds go to university and the country can basically no longer afford to pay for it. The increased numbers at university are also of dubious desirability given the attraction of "soft" subjects such as Media Studies over anything with any degree academic rigour.

Remember though that in the good old days 30 years ago , there were still lots of manufacturing and related jobs in England that don't exist anymore. If you don't pack the schools with 18 year olds, you're going to be paying for it with the dole and packing them away in prisons.

Basically, the west has reached a point where we need a lot of kids to stay at home with mum and dad for a decade or so more until the baby boomers all start to seriously die.

 

[Kulindahr]

Remember though that in the good old days 30 years ago , there were still lots of manufacturing and related jobs in England that don't exist anymore. If you don't pack the schools with 18 year olds, you're going to be paying for it with the dole and packing them away in prisons.

Basically, the west has reached a point where we need a lot of kids to stay at home with mum and dad for a decade or so more until the baby boomers all start to seriously die.

Rubbish.

We've reached a point where most of the West needs to get a clue and manage, like Germany, to remain a manufacturing powerhouse.

In the U.S., that's not going to happen without making up for three-plus decades of neglected infrastructure, and unions biting down on their greed. That other countries companies' are willing to build plants here to compete with our own says it can be done.

 

[rareboy]

Rubbish.

We've reached a point where most of the West needs to get a clue and manage, like Germany, to remain a manufacturing powerhouse.

In the U.S., that's not going to happen without making up for three-plus decades of neglected infrastructure, and unions biting down on their greed. That other countries companies' are willing to build plants here to compete with our own says it can be done.

Not disputing this in the least.

But under the current western capitalist philosophy of having Asia as the factory and the west as voracious consumers in a service based economy, I`m suggesting that the kittens might want to hang around mummy until they are about 35 and that we`d better keep more of them taking classes in college than letting their brains rot, waiting for the next welfare payday.

Unless anyone has a war in mind that would use up about 50 million lives, the way that WWI and WWII helped absorb demographic bulges and kick-start a resource heavy reconstruction.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not disputing this in the least.

But under the current western capitalist philosophy of having Asia as the factory and the west as voracious consumers in a service based economy, I`m suggesting that the kittens might want to hang around mummy until they are about 35 and that we`d better keep more of them taking classes in college than letting their brains rot, waiting for the next welfare payday.

Unless anyone has a war in mind that would use up about 50 million lives, the way that WWI and WWII helped absorb demographic bulges and kick-start a resource heavy reconstruction.

Some epidemiologists are predicting a plague within this generation, one we won't be able to counter until half a billion have died. Heaviest losses would be in crowded, poor conditions.