r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 3, 2020 10:22:55 GMT
Meanwhile, I was the last of the lot to go to University for £1k a year, I remember thinking it a raw deal at the time. How wrong I was. Now it's obviously way more, and effectively a graduate tax. For the previous generation it was free. For my father's generation, well, he was paid to go! . The way I see if is that there is no problem with the present system of university funding. The students do not need to repay until they are in employment. And compared to the eyewatering US university fees, the UK sums being asked of the students are paltry. The problem is that the students who moan loudest are those who are engaged in those farcical soft-option degrees. The sort of thing that in the "old days" would be vocational stuff that you would learn "on the job" has now been turned into utterly pointless university degrees that contribute naff all to the ultimate employability of the student concerned. Do a degree in the proper subjects and you'll have no problem repaying that loan in good time. Don't waste three years of your life doing a degree in pissing about. Sure, not saying it's not a reasonable system in the revised circumstances and certainly good value compared to U S of A. Still, the young are paying more tax (to all intents and purposes) for it than previous generations. My generation had a few K to pay off, whilst generations previous paid nowt or were paid to go. Anyway, I think housing is substantially more of the issue, this is just another bolt-on factor for some.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 3, 2020 10:27:19 GMT
Lefties always seem to get confused about why older people have lots of wealth and the young had none. They seem to think it is unfair rather than something that the older generation worked, saved and invested for. None of my friends had much money when we were in our 20s, even those from wealthy households. Im in my 40s now, with a “high net worth” but I’d happily pay every penny of it for a pill that made me 20 and penniless again. Come now, you must know it's not quite as simple as that, Hazel. I'm in my 30's, and through an unconventional route and a dollop of luck have done very well so far. But I look at the next generation and frankly, I feel sorry for them. Their salaries are stagnant, whilst housing in high demand areas is ludicrously expensive even compared to when I bought one in 2011. Meanwhile, I was the last of the lot to go to University for £1k a year, I remember thinking it a raw deal at the time. How wrong I was. Now it's obviously way more, and effectively a graduate tax. For the previous generation it was free. For my father's generation, well, he was paid to go! . Anyway, there are studies that control for age and show this, but it's pretty self-evident in my view that intergenerational inequality has risen. Housing especially is the nasty one on this. Student loans, wage growth, pensions, it's all in one direction. It's not just a Guardianista's imagination (though there's always room for that too ) .. FT article (google search resultedit: Have removed the graph I pasted as it makes no sense without the context of the article. Okay, I’d give up all my wealth including my house to go back to being 20 today. Why should the young want to live in “high demand” areas. They can live anywhere and have a good time. You can by flats in reasonable areas in Glasgow for 40 - 60k Having money is just a minor compensation for all the side effects of aging. i can’t even go to New Zealand and travel the world for a year now, whereas I could when I was young, working but had little savings
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 3, 2020 10:42:46 GMT
Okay, I’d give up all my wealth including my house to go back to being 20 today. Ok, but that's not an incompatible truth with rising intergenerational financial inequality. Why should the young want to live in “high demand” areas. Because that's where the well paying jobs are. They can live anywhere and have a good time. You can by flats in reasonable areas in Glasgow for 40 - 60k. Are there many (not just a few) high paying career jobs there though?Having money is just a minor compensation for all the side effects of aging. i can’t even go to New Zealand and travel the world for a year now, whereas I could when I was young, working but had little savings My replies in blue. Look, I get your point. With hard work and a fair wind, one tends to have more wealth when older than younger. That's always been true. The fact remains that the wind is rather blowing in the younger generations face. Today's young people demonstrably find it hugely harder to find affordable housing than your generation in areas they (often) need to live in to find good work adjusting for both age and inflation. Does your rather glorious sounding DB pension still exist as a future prospect for more than a tiny fraction of the working population? I await stories of no central heating and frost on windows in draughty terraced houses in the past Seriously though, the young do still have a good lot in many ways I know. But a lot of them would swap all of the avocado toast in the world for a bog standard 2-up, 2-down in Zone 3 in which to raise a family. I'll leave it there, we've been round these houses a few times before
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 3, 2020 11:01:37 GMT
I think it would make sense to shift the tax burden from buying to owning houses. Drop stamp duty and put up council tax. That would make it easier to move for work, and tempt older folk to downsize to free up family homes. But I doubt if that would fill much of the hole in public finance. We might need to do something about our productivity for that. 100% this. Stamp duty is a tax on mobility and is optional - just don't move. Property (or even better - land value) is grossly undertaxed. You can't create ways to avoid Property Tax/Land Value Tax. And it is fair as well as economically beneficial. The "mansion tax" was a very poor attempt at it, and motivated by a sense of "bleed the rich dry" rather than actually raising a decent amount of revenue, which requires a broader tax base. I speak as someone with London property who would disproportionately lose out by this.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 3, 2020 11:02:58 GMT
Did the discussion relate to this: www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/22/wealth-tax-rise-could-raise-174bn-tackle-covid-19-expert-says ? I don't believe the current (right wing) government will do it. Many of the wealthy will simply leave / avoid and the Tories will have killed off their golden geese. But as a nation we appear to have champagne tastes with beer money attitudes when it comes to taxation regarding public health care, aged care and welfare payments. I think there are legitimate discussions to be had regarding taxation in general (current or deferred) and particularly of individuals who have benefited directly from state support over and above normal expectation during this crisis. Which is why you tax property not wealth. Property can't leave.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 3, 2020 11:03:36 GMT
Triple lock is the obvious target. And inevitable: odds on this goes.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 3, 2020 11:05:11 GMT
the NHS gives better value for money than any othe first world country. Come come ... I know we're all supposed to be of the opinion that NHS is god and can do no wrong, but that statement is a bit excessive. Nobody would disagree with you if you said the NHS gives better value for money that the US system. However, in Western Europe, the NHS faces stiff competition. Not at its price level it doesn't.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,137
|
Post by jonno on Jul 3, 2020 11:09:47 GMT
Meanwhile, I was the last of the lot to go to University for £1k a year, I remember thinking it a raw deal at the time. How wrong I was. Now it's obviously way more, and effectively a graduate tax. For the previous generation it was free. For my father's generation, well, he was paid to go! . The way I see if is that there is no problem with the present system of university funding. The students do not need to repay until they are in employment. And compared to the eyewatering US university fees, the UK sums being asked of the students are paltry. The problem is that the students who moan loudest are those who are engaged in those farcical soft-option degrees. The sort of thing that in the "old days" would be vocational stuff that you would learn "on the job" has now been turned into utterly pointless university degrees that contribute naff all to the ultimate employability of the student concerned. Do a degree in the proper subjects and you'll have no problem repaying that loan in good time. Don't waste three years of your life doing a degree in pissing about. Agree with you up to a point. I did economics (not sure where this fits into your "farcical soft option" scale ) but, trust me, I spent three years totally pissing about. I still ended up with a 2:1. and got a decent job. I then went on to take a professional accountancy qualification; now that was most certainly NOT pissing about. So what holders of "media and drama studies" must feel like when they hit the real world is truly scary.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 331
|
Post by zlb on Jul 3, 2020 11:43:11 GMT
Meanwhile, I was the last of the lot to go to University for £1k a year, I remember thinking it a raw deal at the time. How wrong I was. Now it's obviously way more, and effectively a graduate tax. For the previous generation it was free. For my father's generation, well, he was paid to go! . The way I see if is that there is no problem with the present system of university funding. The students do not need to repay until they are in employment. And compared to the eyewatering US university fees, the UK sums being asked of the students are paltry. The problem is that the students who moan loudest are those who are engaged in those farcical soft-option degrees. The sort of thing that in the "old days" would be vocational stuff that you would learn "on the job" has now been turned into utterly pointless university degrees that contribute naff all to the ultimate employability of the student concerned. Do a degree in the proper subjects and you'll have no problem repaying that loan in good time. Don't waste three years of your life doing a degree in pissing about. Bit more complex than that innit. Most universities are starting to only offer vocational degrees I imagine because young people are terrified of not being able to find work afterwards. In the old days perhaps up to 70s a degree in any subject meant you had transferable intelligence (being male also might have helped), a degree = a job. Jumping through hoops of getting a degree is supposed to gain 'equality of opportunity', but in many cases, (depending upon the capability of the recruiter) no matter how good the degree, it's the person who can blag at interview who gets the job, or the one which is least threatening to the UK manager - dealing with this recruitment approach would help deal with the UK productivity problem - ref also 'Princess Syndrome' women being excellent at their jobs but offered no promotion because they don't use the aggressive approach required for this. I've worked with people who have degrees who can't spell, their grammar is poor, and they can't think analytically. Alongside that and reduced staffing I was supposed to find the time to train up apprentices who weren't interested in working and were not mature enough in age to find work to do. There is a danger if the apprenticeship funding system rewards an institution financially for passing an apprentice who wasn't up to the job in reality. There needed to have been higher investment in Further Education colleges, not austerity which started in 2008. Degree apprenticeships are great, but so also is the education of those who put the higher IQ into our culture. CP Snow argued against creating 'two cultures' - I wonder what he would be writing now. Don't they have a more rounded education on the Continent? Scientific, peer reviewed research has demonstrated that luck plays a significant part in lifetime good fortune/wealth. There are a lot of reports on how fees aren't working, though. There probably are better payment methods. Our society needs good quality social workers, but our society doesn't need them to be in debt for most of their lives. Anyway, I'm not sure that any debate on this is worth it when housing is so unaffordable. What contribution would anyone give to a society where they knew they would never be able to afford their own home?
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,137
|
Post by jonno on Jul 3, 2020 11:48:43 GMT
I did economics (not sure where this fits into your "farcical soft option" scale ) jonno At one point in history, it would have been a perfectly respectable degree. However in these modern times, it has become the breeding ground of the modern politician (the infamous PPE route into politics). Still a hell of a lot better than a degree in meeja studies, I'll give you that ! Ah yes, but remember, I studied it very much "at one point in history" I was paid not only a grant, but because I was 21 I was paid a "mature student's grant" which was almost as much as I was being paid in a rubbish, council pen pushing job. Looking back, I think having the the status of "Mature" was as far away from reality as it's possible to get (probably still is).
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 331
|
Post by zlb on Jul 3, 2020 11:51:19 GMT
The way I see if is that there is no problem with the present system of university funding. The students do not need to repay until they are in employment. And compared to the eyewatering US university fees, the UK sums being asked of the students are paltry. The problem is that the students who moan loudest are those who are engaged in those farcical soft-option degrees. The sort of thing that in the "old days" would be vocational stuff that you would learn "on the job" has now been turned into utterly pointless university degrees that contribute naff all to the ultimate employability of the student concerned. Do a degree in the proper subjects and you'll have no problem repaying that loan in good time. Don't waste three years of your life doing a degree in pissing about. Agree with you up to a point. I did economics (not sure where this fits into your "farcical soft option" scale ) but, trust me, I spent three years totally pissing about. I still ended up with a 2:1. and got a decent job. I then went on to take a professional accountancy qualification; now that was most certainly NOT pissing about. So what holders of "media and drama studies" must feel like when they hit the real world is truly scary. Yes this reminds me of this: teaching disadvantaged or perhaps overly-protected children and young people about careers, work, life, and the professions is one of the huge breakers of barriers that prevent educated decisions about what Quals to do. Otherwise we just get families who are all lawyers, and no one else is. The celebrity culture 'I want to be famous' why aren't there more TV programmes on the psychologically ill reasons there might be for this desire? I think we need more quals which allow the following of an art and a science or business subject. On the continent, and in the US a degree might be called Music and...(insert desk job qual).
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,137
|
Post by jonno on Jul 3, 2020 11:57:32 GMT
Ok, I'll go first: Drama and Alpaca Husbandry
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 331
|
Post by zlb on Jul 3, 2020 17:45:54 GMT
Ok, I'll go first: Drama and Alpaca Husbandry Routes into careers need to be opened up yes. A lot of postgraduate professions are just that, so how would drama therapists get onto drama therapist post-grad courses, if not via a drama degree? Career change is locked by the closure of what was traditional adult education owing to funding cuts, and now if you want to change career you have to shell out 9k just to work in a different sector - the requirement for degrees and postgrads is set by the managerialist employers who only know how to recruit and financially reward management skills.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,186
Likes: 5,994
|
Post by registerme on Jul 4, 2020 3:07:45 GMT
jonno At one point in history, it would have been a perfectly respectable degree. However in these modern times, it has become the breeding ground of the modern politician (the infamous PPE route into politics). Still a hell of a lot better than a degree in meeja studies, I'll give you that ! Ah yes, but remember, I studied it very much "at one point in history" I was paid not only a grant, but because I was 21 I was paid a "mature student's grant" which was almost as much as I was being paid in a rubbish, council pen pushing job. Looking back, I think having the the status of "Mature" was as far away from reality as it's possible to get (probably still is). I started at uni just at the tail end of "grants". We had a few mature students on the course (guessing at say five or six out of... 60?). Four years later and one of them (a single parent) was the only person to be awarded a first. I learnt as much from the rest of my cohort as I did from the course, and of the rest of my cohort I learnt the most from the "mature" students.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,137
|
Post by jonno on Jul 4, 2020 8:28:38 GMT
Ok, I'll go first: Drama and Alpaca Husbandry Routes into careers need to be opened up yes. A lot of postgraduate professions are just that, so how would drama therapists get onto drama therapist post-grad courses, if not via a drama degree? Career change is locked by the closure of what was traditional adult education owing to funding cuts, and now if you want to change career you have to shell out 9k just to work in a different sector - the requirement for degrees and postgrads is set by the managerialist employers who only know how to recruit and financially reward management skills. I'm sorry zlb, but with the greatest respect, having re-read your post several times I still haven't got the faintest idea what that load of guff is all about.Oh ,and by the way, what in God's name is a "drama therapist"?
|
|