Am I the only one?

[Squashed_Fly]

who is sick of seeing people arguing about tuition fees. It's a privelage, not a right to go to university, and you should have to pay for it! If you're not going to earn the kind of money where you can pay it back easily, then don't bother going. Doctors, teachers, etc fair enough. But to get some lame degree then end up... working in Mcdonalds is ridiculous. Get an apprenticeship or real job training and stop whinging.

We should be encouraging people away from University, unless they actually NEED to go ...for the job they want to do. In tme, if we do that, then the fees will come down. I know so many people with menial degrees doing dead end jobs because there's millions of people with a 'psychology degree', or 'sports science' etc. You can even get a degree in David Beckham for crying out loud. When this stops, the fees will reduce in line. Less need to pay so many lecturers to breed ignorant young people who want to drink their loans away. Stereotypes? Yes - but we ge stereotypes for a reason...

And here endeth the rant for this morning! A huge debate is currently raging on my FB page! lol

[Hazel-nut]

as a student i would like to point out that im not joining in on the protests!i think is the wrong people doing it and they are going about it the wrong way!what is the point of current students protesting when it isnt going to affect them!
i understand that people dont want to pay £9000 a year to go to uni for 3 years but like you said if it gets you a better job at the end of it then you can pay the loan back easily!
im hoping my degree is going to help me get a better job but i will say one thing...i will NEVER work in mcdonalds or any other fast food place!that i can promise you!

[Dabz]

Hopefulyl higher fees will change things back to where only the best students go to university, so that employers know that graduates really are the cream of the crop - at the mo far too many people go into uni because it's an easy option (and get accepted with crap grades because the uni needs the money) where they would be far better off getting a job and getting real experience. As an employer, employing uni graduates is a nightmare because they think they're worth more because they've had to pay for uni, when in actual fact they're not very worldly and take forever to settle into proper grown up working life!

[wiltshire builders]

Squashed Fly, you've hit the nail on the head with regards to apprenticeships.
Maybe that could be incorporated into getting a degree. The industry in which you want a degree should pay for courses via a slush fund and select students on merit. It would benifit the companies involved and weed out the slackers who are just along for the ride.
It would also reduce the number of Mickey Mouse degrees out there. Doubt David Beckham would want to dip into his pocket to fund the course assosiated with him ;D

[Nokesy]

I did my degree later on in life (well, not that late really - age 24 but they classed me as a 'mature' student! ;D). It was in Sport and Health with Psychology and never led to a job as such, just a large amount of debt which is taken directly from my salary on a monthly basis which I just don't look at as it is rather depressing. :(

I have got a great job now that I love, which pays OK, but the degree has nothing to do with that. The Charity I work for has put me through various training courses so that I have been able to rise through the ranks and gain promotions over the years. I would advise anyone thinking of going to Uni, that unless it leads to a 'proper' job such as teacher, lawyer, doctor etc.. etc. which you can't do without the degree, to not bother - go for apprenticeships or work for organisations such as Charities which usually offer great training opportunities and varied work opportunities even if the salaries start off fairly low. Those who work hard can prove themselves and find promotions without the hideous level of debt that degrees create. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[Ducatista]

I think we need to invest in people to get the skills we need.
I do believe that students should contribute themselves but I think the proposed debt burden being placed on them is too great.

I don't think you should only go to university if you can get a top flight, top paying job.
There are some valuable low paid jobs that need a university education and also people bringing up children can pass on the benefits of a university education.
I am not saying everyone should go for free, but I believe the propsals have gone too far.

I would agree that there should be increased and better use of vocation training e.g. apprentiships.

But it would be a great shame if only the rich or those with a guaranteed top flight job could go. It's hugely enriching to your life even if you "just" contribute by bringing up children.

[ZZR600Dude]

£9000 a year is a lot of money. For a 3 year course thats £27,000 (my Maths degree did come in handy then?)

I was fortunate when I was that it was free in those days. I am on a reasonable income but I struggle to pay off a few hundred a month on credit cards etc, hate to think I had a £27,000 loan. Plus also any students now wanting to buy a house will have a massive mortgage. A basic flat costs £120,000. If a student leaves uni now and get a job on £30,000 which is good for a graduate starting salary they could only get a mortgage for about £90K max leaving a shortfall of £30,00 that would have to be saved. Saved from where?, they already have a £27,000 debt to pay off.

:(

[Ducatista]

You're right dude.
Young people are really bearing the brunt of these hard time.
Unemployment for young people is high and as you say it's tough for them if they go to uni so all their options are tough.

When I went to uni (many moons ago) there were no fees.
I remember that I felt hugely hard done by because my maintenance grant was means tested and I did not get a full grant.
I came out of uni with savings as I worked in all my holidays.

I think things are much harder for young people right now.

[redken1]

Putting aside the increase in fees for a moment, we must not forget why so many students are angered by the forthcoming increase in fees. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and his cohorts targeted university constituencies during their pre-election campaign, promising students that the Lib -dems would oppose a rise in tuition fees. I accept some of the previous comments relating to worthless degrees and the need for more vocational training. That said however, I am 100 per cent behind the peaceful protesters ( not the violent hijackers) because I believe that the opportunity of a worthwhile degree should be available to all and not only bright school leavers from rich backgrounds. The coalition government have made a futile attempt in defending this hike by raising the earnings threshold when a graduate will start paying back the fees. How many bright school leavers from deprived backgrounds will be deterred from going to university by the thought of starting their working life with £30,000 of debt?

[Squashed_Fly]

But its not proper debt. Thats the thing. You pay it back in tiny increments once you earn enough to do so. And i dont know why everyone keeps saying its for the rich only - student loans are available to everyone. The days of only the rich being able to go are long gone

[redken1]

But its not proper debt. Thats the thing. You pay it back in tiny increments once you earn enough to do so. And i dont know why everyone keeps saying its for the rich only - student loans are available to everyone. The days of only the rich being able to go are long gone

With respect - loan, fees it's all gotta be paid back by the recipient. The days of only the rich kids going to University are on there way back once these fees are introduced.

[Beamer]

just a little point i wish to make on the way things are going........I am more upset about the way people who cannot go to uni, college etc etc are being treated at the moment...... the people I work with are having funding cut for the basic care they have to pay for in care homes...... mobility allowances are being cut for people who are permanantly in wheelchairs who have to pay god knows how much for a taxi to town to buy their shopping etc etc etc..... i even heard of one person being refused funding for a special chair to use a toilet cos 'he can go on his bed' and save that local authority some money!!!!!!! WTF !! Because he cant stick up for himself, is this right???? No it bloody well isnt.......Students are demonstrating cos they will have to pay more in fees..... what about basic human dignity for a person who cant fight for themselves... who protests for them????????
Sorry but I know where my sympathies lie >:( >:(

[Squashed_Fly]

Thats true. But if you never earn more than 21k, you never have to pay it...

[redken1]

just a little point i wish to make on the way things are going........I am more upset about the way people who cannot go to uni, college etc etc are being treated at the moment...... the people I work with are having funding cut for the basic care they have to pay for in care homes...... mobility allowances are being cut for people who are permanantly in wheelchairs who have to pay god knows how much for a taxi to town to buy their shopping etc etc etc..... i even heard of one person being refused funding for a special chair to use a toilet cos 'he can go on his bed' and save that local authority some money!!!!!!! WTF !! Because he cant stick up for himself, is this right???? No it bloody well isnt.......Students are demonstrating cos they will have to pay more in fees..... what about basic human dignity for a person who cant fight for themselves... who protests for them????????
Sorry but I know where my sympathies lie >:( >:(

Tina - heartbreaking. Apologies in advance, but I can't dodge being too political on this scandalous situation, because I really believe that this government intends to introduce more and more measures to cut a wide range of public services. All designed to shift the burden away from the public purse and on to the voluntary sector. I think Cameron calls it, "The Big Society"

[Dabz]

Thats true. But if you never earn more than 21k, you never have to pay it...

You'd be pretty pissed off if you did all that hard work at uni and never earned more than 21k wouldn't you!?

[Squashed_Fly]

Lots of people dont tho

[ChrisJo]

Controversial I know, but I can't help but feel (after seeing some of the student crettins on TV) that they are at UNI because they really can't face the thought of actually accepting responsibility for their lives and get a paying job... Ooooh it might involve getting up and stuff [smiley=happy.gif]

[ZZR600Dude]

£21k is not a lot. It was mentioned earlier in the thread that yes we need degrees for doctors, teachers etc.

Doctors are in a different league on pay but if a teachers average salary on full scale points is £30K but they have £27,000 in debt plus massive mortguages to think about. Where is the incentive for anyone to go into say teaching (I use this only as an example I am sure there are other not so well jobs requiring degrees). People would soon complain when their son/daughter is taught by an Easter European because there wernt enough teachers in the UK. Those considering going into teaching may as well go stack shelves or something.

[Scotty]

I wouldn't have the job that I do now were it not for having a degree, and neither would a number of WBs. Unfortunately employers can be choosy nowadays, given the higher levels of unemployment and they'll insist of graduate-calibre candidates when the jobs don't really merit that level of applicant, simply because they can. There are so many people doing great jobs and earning decent money without a University education, but they've generally done it the hard way.
Question for Nokesy - although your degree wasn't especially relevant to your current job, was it a requirement to get the job in the first place? :-?
It's all very well for Cameron and his band of toffs to propose fees of up to £9k/annum - he and most of his cronies will pay more than that PER TERM to send their kids to some posh public school >:( >:( >:(

[BB]

This company thinks very highly of degrees - never mind what they are in. Here we are in landlocked Wiltshire (well landlocked apart from the Kennet & Avon Canal) and one of the engineers has a degree in Oceanography! :o

BB

[wiltshire builders]

I don't have a problem with the protests. It is (or was) our right to protest against things we find unjust.

I really hate the way it regularly turns into a riot. People keep banging on about "A small minority who have nothing to do with students, spoiling it" but thats just bollox. Earlier in the week arrests were made for exteme acts of violence and they were all bloody students.

Hurling a fire extinguisher off of a roof into a crowd isn't too smart. Good luck getting a job now jackass!
Maybe they could come up with a degree on How not to kill inocent people.

[Nokesy]

Question for Nokesy - although your degree wasn't especially relevant to your current job, was it a requirement to get the job in the first place?

No, not a requirement of first job I had with Charity and still isn't a requirement at current level although some Management and Leadership qualification (or willingness to gain one) is. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Although I do think having a degree always demonstrates to future employers the ability to apply yourself [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[ZZR600Dude]

Controversial I know, but I can't help but feel (after seeing some of the student crettins on TV) that they are at UNI because they really can't face the thought of actually accepting responsibility for their lives and get a paying job... Ooooh it might involve getting up and stuff [smiley=happy.gif]


or maybe they have faced to to their responsibilities and decided they do need to get an education to even stand a chance of an employer looking at their C.V. as employer can pick and choose who they want now. Yes there are a few students who do courses as there nothing better to do, but I bet the vast majority are there to better themselves and worry about passing exams in order to get a job. Its those who decide to leave school with no intention of ever getting a job you should be having a go at.

And anyway why is Uni education to be singled out. Why not go the whole hog and go back to the 1800 and send the children back to the workhouses, all those GCSE and A level studens sitting aroud in classrooms when they could be doing a days job down the mine....

>:(

[ChrisJo]

Controversial I know, but I can't help but feel (after seeing some of the student crettins on TV) that they are at UNI because they really can't face the thought of actually accepting responsibility for their lives and get a paying job... Ooooh it might involve getting up and stuff [smiley=happy.gif]


or maybe they have faced to to their responsibilities and decided they do need to get an education to even stand a chance of an employer looking at their C.V. as employer can pick and choose who they want now. Yes there are a few students who do courses as there nothing better to do, but I bet the vast majority are there to better themselves and worry about passing exams in order to get a job. Its those who decide to leave school with no intention of ever getting a job you should be having a go at.

And anyway why is Uni education to be singled out. Why not go the whole hog and go back to the 1800 and send the children back to the workhouses, all those GCSE and A level studens sitting aroud in classrooms when they could be doing a days job down the mine....

>:(

Oh dear.....

[redken1]

I am not singling out any previous contributor in particular, but if we are to engage in a sensible debate on this issue perhaps we should avoid making sweeping generalizations. It is wrong to tar all students with the same brush just because of the actions of a small number of mindless idiots, just as it is for some in the anti-biking lobby to condemn all bikers for the actions of a few.

[ZZR600Dude]

I am not singling out any previous contributor in particular, but if we are to engage in a sensible debate on this issue perhaps we should avoid making sweeping generalizations. It is wrong to tar all students with the same brush just because of the actions of a small number of mindless idiots, just as it is for some in the anti-biking lobby to condemn all bikers for the actions of a few.
well said [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[Hazel-nut]

I am not singling out any previous contributor in particular, but if we are to engage in a sensible debate on this issue perhaps we should avoid making sweeping generalizations. It is wrong to tar all students with the same brush just because of the actions of a small number of mindless idiots, just as it is for some in the anti-biking lobby to condemn all bikers for the actions of a few.
well said [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


+1 student who isnt taking part in the debates and is getting highly annoyed with them

[Morticia]

Well, as a mum I have to say that if my son wants to go to uni, he will go to uni. With my money and my blessing too.

[redken1]

Well, as a mum I have to say that if my son wants to go to uni, he will go to uni. With my money and my blessing too.

The problem is that all parents want the best for their offspring, but the reality is that many mums and dads simlpy don't have enough income to provide financial help for their offspring who wish to attend university.

[Morticia]

Where there's a will...

[Dabz]

I paid for uni myself with no help from my parents whatsoever...it's not all about parental handouts!

[Hazel-nut]

Well, as a mum I have to say that if my son wants to go to uni, he will go to uni. With my money and my blessing too.

The problem is that all parents want the best for their offspring, but the reality is that many mums and dads simlpy don't have enough income to provide financial help for their offspring who wish to attend university.


thats what the loans,grants and bursarys are for and failing that get a job!the uni offers jobs in the su or the shop so you dont even hvae to look that far!

[Nokesy]

I paid for uni myself with no help from my parents whatsoever...it's not all about parental handouts!

Me too! Although I use the term 'paid' loosely - 'paying' seems a better fit ;D

[redken1]

With respect £3000 to £9000 max fees per year equates to £27,000 in the future form the current £9000 for a three year degree course. I am confident enough to bet my mortgage on the following prediction. When the rise in fees are introduced independent reports will conclude that there is a significant fall in the numbers of school leavers from poor backgrounds applying for university places. I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but I want to live in a society where equality of opurtunity exists for all.

[Dabz]

I can see your point, but why shouldn't someone from a poorer background be able to put themself through uni??? I didn't exactly have a huge wage at age 18 when I started uni but I managed - worked weekends, full time every holiday, started saving as soon as I was old enough to earn, then during uni managed on part time wages and the student loan which is available to all

background doesn't come in to it unless you expect your parents to fund you!

[freddieb]

I just seen them demonstrating on the News,... Bloody yobbo's.. ;D ;D

[Dabz]

yeh just watched it on the news...some were smiling too much for my liking - you're not supposed to enjoy having to protest to protect something you care about. a bandwagon a lot have jumped on I suspect, especially the 11/12 yr old hoodies who seemed to be loving every minute

[redken1]

Off course your background comes into it. Why do you think the former labour government introduced the EMA grant? It was based on statistical information and expert recommendations to encourage children from poorer backgrounds to better themselves and stay on at school. Dadz, did you have to pay £9,000 per annum in fees? I am always happy when I attend demos because rightly or wrongly, I believe I am part of something that could bring about a change for the better. In this instance our so called democracy failed the students as the Tory's bedfellows lied about tuition fees.

[BladeTriple]

If you're off to do a degree thats worthwhile and will help you get a future career (not stacking shelves after uni) then please do go out there and make something of yourself.... If however like an ex of mine you go out and a degree in Forensic Science (too much watching CSI I think) and end up finding out you're over qualified and under experienced so no job offers and end up managing a pub... save the tax payer a bucket load and just stick to the bar work and get your management qualification on the job .

Theres too many fancy nice to have degrees out there that hold no real use in the real world unless you do them whilst currently in a role that requires them yet they open them up to spotty faced kids who in all reality don't want that degree they just want the university lifestyle of sleeping late, attending a few briefings and then getting ready for another heavy night on the sauce ....

Don't get me wrong I have 4 cousins who went to Uni, 2 of them now Doctors, 1 a Solicitor and the other a Charge Nurse so I'm definitely all for an education but use the bloody thing !

[Dabz]

I'm all for distance and part time learning while on the job too...don't get me wrong, I did my 3 yrs at uni, but am now doing a Masters in my evenings and weekends...always wanted to do it but couldn't justify a further 2 years of uni and not working

there's nothing stopping people finishing school, getting a job and working their way through uni part time

[freddieb]

Dabz for prime minister!! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[redken1]

I suspect that will be an option for many in the future Dabz. I Apologise if I have been a bit forceful in putting my point across, but I have relatives who dropped out of uni mainly due to financial reasons.

[Dabz]

nah no probs mate, debate is boring if everyone's worried about upsetting everyone else!

[redken1]

Dabz for prime minister!! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Unlike our curent Deputy Prime Minister, I would have alot more faith in Dabz honouring his promises. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[Morticia]

I paid for uni myself with no help from my parents whatsoever...it's not all about parental handouts!


I don't have any issue helping my child. It is, after all, my job. I know I don't have to, but I want to, why not make his life easier if I can?

[Morticia]

With respect £3000 to £9000 max fees per year equates to £27,000 in the future form the current £9000 for a three year degree course. I am confident enough to bet my mortgage on the following prediction. When the rise in fees are introduced independent reports will conclude that there is a significant fall in the numbers of school leavers from poor backgrounds applying for university places. I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but I want to live in a society where equality of opurtunity exists for all.

Unfortunate, but true

[Mitch9128]

With respect £3000 to £9000 max fees per year equates to £27,000 in the future form the current £9000 for a three year degree course. I am confident enough to bet my mortgage on the following prediction. When the rise in fees are introduced independent reports will conclude that there is a significant fall in the numbers of school leavers from poor backgrounds applying for university places. I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but I want to live in a society where equality of opurtunity exists for all.


I doubt there will be a fall in those from poor backgroungs Ken, simply put the benefits will be there to assist them, the rich will see no real impact on them either, it will be the average joe who suffers.
A few things that concern me, the tories are not implementing this because of the global recession, the money won't be repaid for many years yet, if ever, so it isn't to 'Help' us all out. So it's obviously something the tories have wanted to implement, cool they can yet again blame it on recession/previous government...again. How will it affect credit scoring if a student then leaves Uni, get's a job and wants a mortgage? £30k is a lot of debt for anyone, surely it will affect when they want further credit/mortgage?

[Ducatista]

it will be the average joe who suffers.

Lurkalot and I went to uni quite a long time ago, but the same principle applies and therefore I think it's relevant.
Back in our day (ha, ha) we had no fees and maintenance grants (yes, I know we were lucky). The maintenance grants was means tested on parents income, so poorer students got a full grant and richer ones got nothing (but had parental help).
We both fell on the border line, where we got a partial grant because we came from hardworking families where both parents worked but weren't particularly well paid (shop, office, factory etc.).
We were worse off than the poor students because our parents could not afford to make the contribution they were meant to.
There was also an anomaly with divorced parents, where the student only had to claim the income of one parents and of course everyone would put down the income of the poorest parent.
We did both work when we were at uni, but that's besides the point.
The point of the anecdote is that hardworking average people were worse off than the poor.

They also have to be very careful to watch our for anomalies/abuse.
There is currently an EMA grant available to poor people.
I have heard that there are some wealthy people locally with all their money tied up in property whose offspring get this EMA which was designed for the poor.
They own millions of pounds worth of property but their accounts are done in such a way that their expenses (maintenance of property) are offset against thei income, so whilst being quite wealthy, their declared income is very low.

I am all for all legal measure to avoid tax etc. and I do so myself, but it is generally the rich who are able to get the help of tax accountants etc.

I think I would be seriously dis-incentivised to go to university now, from the background I came from, because I wouldn't qualify for grants but wouldn't get much parental help either.

[Hazel-nut]

[QUOTE]I have heard that there are some wealthy people locally with all their money tied up in property whose offspring get this EMA which was designed for the poor.
They own millions of pounds worth of property but their accounts are done in such a way that their expenses (maintenance of property) are offset against thei income, so whilst being quite wealthy, their declared income is very low.



a friend of a friend got the full allowance of ema and gets all the extra grants and bursaries as her parents have no income......they won a hell of a lot of money on the lottery and are living of that!! [smiley=shocked.gif]

another thing i hate about ema is why should they get an extra £100 just for turning up to their exams?when i was at college 1 person came into all her exams but just slept through them and didnt even write her name on the paper!why should she get paid for that when im sat there writing constantly for 2 hours?

[Mitch9128]

[QUOTE]I have heard that there are some wealthy people locally with all their money tied up in property whose offspring get this EMA which was designed for the poor.
They own millions of pounds worth of property but their accounts are done in such a way that their expenses (maintenance of property) are offset against thei income, so whilst being quite wealthy, their declared income is very low.



a friend of a friend got the full allowance of ema and gets all the extra grants and bursaries as her parents have no income......they won a hell of a lot of money on the lottery and are living of that!! [smiley=shocked.gif]

another thing i hate about ema is why should they get an extra £100 just for turning up to their exams?when i was at college 1 person came into all her exams but just slept through them and didnt even write her name on the paper!why should she get paid for that when im sat there writing constantly for 2 hours?

If they had a business worth millions, but paid themselves peanuts, then i could believe that. However means testing would show up this money as savings etc...someones telling you porkies.

[redken1]

With respect £3000 to £9000 max fees per year equates to £27,000 in the future form the current £9000 for a three year degree course. I am confident enough to bet my mortgage on the following prediction. When the rise in fees are introduced independent reports will conclude that there is a significant fall in the numbers of school leavers from poor backgrounds applying for university places. I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but I want to live in a society where equality of opurtunity exists for all.


I doubt there will be a fall in those from poor backgroungs Ken, simply put the benefits will be there to assist them, the rich will see no real impact on them either, it will be the average joe who suffers.
A few things that concern me, the tories are not implementing this because of the global recession, the money won't be repaid for many years yet, if ever, so it isn't to 'Help' us all out. So it's obviously something the tories have wanted to implement, cool they can yet again blame it on recession/previous government...again. How will it affect credit scoring if a student then leaves Uni, get's a job and wants a mortgage? £30k is a lot of debt for anyone, surely it will affect when they want further credit/mortgage?

As you rightly point out Mitch, the rise in tuition fees which was carried in parliament last Thursday is a Tory policy. The Tories made concessions on this bill in order to keep the Lib-dems on side and push it through. It now appears that school leavers from poorer backgrounds will be exempt from paying fees for the first two years of their course. Sounds great on the face of it but the criteria for eligibility is flawed. To be eligible for this concession a student needs to show that he/her was in receipt of free school meals while at school. Unfortunately, thousands of children who are eligible for free meals, for whatever reason do not apply. In addition, there are huge numbers of parents who are low paid and do not receive the qualifying benefits which would entitle their offspring to free school meals. Call me a cynic, but I am sure this was by design from the Tories. The Tories must be loving this cosy coalition because the Lib-Dems have taken the heat of of them. When the time comes, I hope the shooters target all the proverbial crows. >:(

[Ducatista]

If they had a business worth millions, but paid themselves peanuts, then i could believe that. However means testing would show up this money as savings etc...someones telling you porkies.

From what I can see (and yes I know you have to be carerful with what you find on tinternet) the award of EMA is based purely on household income and not assets.
People with property try to minimise income (on paper) to reduce income tax. You can do this by taking out a larger mortgage than required, offsetting the interest payments to reduce profits (income) and investing any excess. Any gains made on the investments will then count as CGT (captial gains tax) for which there is an allowance.

[Mitch9128]

If they had a business worth millions, but paid themselves peanuts, then i could believe that. However means testing would show up this money as savings etc...someones telling you porkies.

From what I can see (and yes I know you have to be carerful with what you find on tinternet) the award of EMA is based purely on household income and not assets.
People with property try to minimise income (on paper) to reduce income tax. You can do this by taking out a larger mortgage than required, offsetting the interest payments to reduce profits (income) and investing any excess. Any gains made on the investments will then count as CGT (captial gains tax) for which there is an allowance.


Sure, and a lottery win would be savings i.e. income, so you would have to declare it. Unlike a multi million pound business you own, and only pay yourself £500 a month out of. I have heard of such people claiming the top amount of family/tax credits in that situation, thats a loophole that needs closing.

[Ducatista]

Sure, and a lottery win would be savings i.e. income

No, savings are not income, the interest that is generated from the savings is income.
You can further minimise the income by putting the money into stock&shares, gold etc. as any gains are now capital gains and not income.

People with millions of pounds worth of property can still have little income.
I agree it's daft and something that should be changed.

[Mitch9128]

Duc regardless of whether you think savings are income, they ARE taken into account when calculating any type of benefits. Yes i understand business and property are not taken into account, but savings are.

[Ducatista]

Duc regardless of whether you think savings are income

I think you are mistaken with your definitions, but it's not me that makes the rules, it's the Inland Revenue and the Department of Work and pensions, so should be fairly easy to check.

You can find a definition of what the Inland Revenue consider as income here (this is her majestys revenue and customs website so I think we can consider it reliable).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/taxable-income.htm#3

You are correct that savings at a certain level can stop you getting many benefits (although they are defined as savings and not income) and savings can indeed generate income in the form of interest.
There are generally capital rules and income rules to claim benefits.
Savings come under capital and interest comes under income.

However for EMA savings are not included in the qualification criteria.

Do you have any information you can point to with different definitions/information?

Are you getting mixed up with the savings themselves and the income generated from them (the interest)? i.e. generally defined as capital and income.

Perhaps we have an accountant who can clarify?

[Mitch9128]

I can't get a definitive on this one Duc, maybe savings are not on the means test form? Either way it needs to be scrapped, it's open to abuse and the incentive is already there for those who really want a decent education.

[BladeTriple]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already as there is a hell of a lot to read back on but instead of overeducating burger flippers of the future with trendy nice to have degrees why are we not pushing apprenticeships? Learn through work , your employer takes you on because they see something in you and in turn pay for your degree by paying you a bit less than your peers and that way they are getting the skill sets they require from someone who wants to do a job in their field of expertise ? It would do away with paying off huge debts at the end of it all, also it would kill the whole 'sorry no experience = no job' issue that many graduates face .

I know I couldn't have got a degree at that age and have got my vocational qualifications in the last 18 years of serving queen and country , I've had almost the student lifestyle of getting hammered over in Germany on cheap booze and lived a party lifestyle when I wasn't working until I had to grow up (eventually!)

Granted not ever employer or vocation is going to be suited to this way of gaining a degree however a lot of companies would actually benefit from this and in turn do away with people flitting between courses because they get bored of the one they are doing. Too many people see a degree as a way of improving yourself without actually doing anything with it afterwards, almost a status thing... If you can afford that then fine pay for it yourself. If you find yourself in the same boat as most tho and requiring it to be paid for by the tax payer I suggest you think long and hard about the financial implications before you commit to 3 to 4 years or more of full time education.

To me tho, earn as you learn or an apprenticeship / scholarship is the best way to deal with a lot of this and in turn it can kill some of the 'trendy nice to have' degrees that are really neither use nor ornament!
Soapbox back in its corner ;)

[Squashed_Fly]

It's a shame we don't have like/dislike buttons on some of these posts, like on Facebook as I couldn't agree more BT!

[redken1]

Do you think private companies will fork out nearly £30,000 to put employees through a degree and then watch them leave to join another firm?

[Scaredy_Cat]

Do you think private companies will fork out nearly £30,000 to put employees through a degree and then watch them leave to join another firm?

Thankfully, some companies are willing to take that risk, and more. I am very fortunate to work for one of them. :)

Over the past 12 years, the company I work for has put me through a three-year airframes/engines apprenticeship, forked out for 3 HNCs, Level 2 NDT certification in the 5 major disciplines (Penetrant Testing, Eddy Current Testing, Magnetic Particle Testing, Ultrasonics, and Radiography) and now they are paying for my degree. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[Squashed_Fly]

Ken, companies sponsoring degrees make you sign a clause so you cant leave, usually for 5 years or more and if you do you have to pay most of it back.

[redken1]

Ken, companies sponsoring degrees make you sign a clause so you cant leave, usually for 5 years or more and if you do you have to pay most of it back.

Does the 5 year contract iclude the degree duration? Reason I ask is that many young school leavers may not wish to tie themselves down for such a long period, at a time when they are still finding their way in the world.

[BladeTriple]

Do you think private companies will fork out nearly £30,000 to put employees through a degree and then watch them leave to join another firm?

The point is paying the person a lower wage to offset the cost of the education and then put a contract clause in there that if they leave before a set agreed period that they have to repay a percentage of the cost of the degree . This way whichever industry you are in you can then get the best of both worlds, staff keen to learn and then properly qualified as you are sending them off to do the courses that YOU need not ones they fancy doing.

[BladeTriple]

Do you think private companies will fork out nearly £30,000 to put employees through a degree and then watch them leave to join another firm?

Thankfully, some companies are willing to take that risk, and more. I am very fortunate to work for one of them. :)

Over the past 12 years, the company I work for has put me through a three-year airframes/engines apprenticeship, forked out for 3 HNCs, Level 2 NDT certification in the 5 major disciplines (Penetrant Testing, Eddy Current Testing, Magnetic Particle Testing, Ultrasonics, and Radiography) and now they are paying for my degree. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


Fantastic to see that some companies out there are actually switched on and really pleased that you've benefitted from it [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[redken1]

Sponsorship may not be for everyone, obviously. Not trying to be negative, but if companies were not meeting demand at £3000 grand per year fees can't see how sponsorship numbers will rise with a hike in fees to £9000 and in light of the current economic climate.

[Mitch9128]

Agree Ken, Apprenticeships are ok for some but not for many. How many kids make the right decision career wise after leaving school? I know i didn't. A degree gives them an opportunity to study further in an area, and not neccesarily go into that field when finishing. What i can't understand is, why raise the cap at all, why not scrap fees completely. The money isn't for the recession, government will not see it now, and possibly never, and if it does in say 6 or 7 years, the coutry may not need it. For many many years it was free, we accepted it then, why change?

[redken1]

Agree Ken, Apprenticeships are ok for some but not for many. How many kids make the right decision career wise after leaving school? I know i didn't. A degree gives them an opportunity to study further in an area, and not neccesarily go into that field when finishing. What i can't understand is, why raise the cap at all, why not scrap fees completely. The money isn't for the recession, government will not see it now, and possibly never, and if it does in say 6 or 7 years, the coutry may not need it. For many many years it was free, we accepted it then, why change?

I am pleased I am not a voice in the wilderness - Cameron and Clegg rammed their soundbite "A fairer Britain" down our throats pre-election. They should scrap it - Neither of them had to pay for their degree. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[Mitch9128]

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2010/11/Nick-Clegg-tuition-fees-pledge.jpg
Call in the fraud squad, anybody still wondering why the students are angry?

[redken1]

"A Fairer Alternative" ??????? >:(

[Mitch9128]

One for the Accountants perhaps?
If there are thousands of students, owing collectively millions of pounds to the government, do these show as assets on the books? Nice way to massage the economy figures if it does.

[Squashed_Fly]

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2010/11/Nick-Clegg-tuition-fees-pledge.jpg
Call in the fraud squad, anybody still wondering why the students are angry?

Yeah, but if that's what the public wanted, then that's what they should have voted. Nick Clegg isn't in charge, nor did they get a majority vote (despite that, I still voted for him!).

The party with the majority of votes (regardless of how our messed up voting system works) is now in charge and thus making the decisions. The Coalition idea is grreat, and hopefully it is bringing about some different ways of doing things for the Torys, but ultimately they will still be responsible for the decisions. Perhaps those students should have got off their arses and voted for Nick Clegg. If every protesting student bothered to vote Lib Dem, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and they would not be protesting.

It's easy to cry about it afterwards, but they had the opportunity to bring about change. That's why we have the vote.

[Mitch9128]

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2010/11/Nick-Clegg-tuition-fees-pledge.jpg
Call in the fraud squad, anybody still wondering why the students are angry?

Yeah, but if that's what the public wanted, then that's what they should have voted. Nick Clegg isn't in charge, nor did they get a majority vote (despite that, I still voted for him!).

The party with the majority of votes (regardless of how our messed up voting system works) is now in charge and thus making the decisions. The Coalition idea is grreat, and hopefully it is bringing about some different ways of doing things for the Torys, but ultimately they will still be responsible for the decisions. Perhaps those students should have got off their arses and voted for Nick Clegg. If every protesting student bothered to vote Lib Dem, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and they would not be protesting.

Apart from the students, who else would have voted for those muppets? The fact is, Clegg is in power and is not doing as he promised he would, he lied.
It's easy to cry about it afterwards, but they had the opportunity to bring about change. That's why we have the vote.

[Squashed_Fly]

Clegg most definately isn't! lol It's all a show. He has no more real power than you or I do. In fact we have more, because we can vote in and out who ever we want!

[redken1]

With respect SF, perhaps your take on the election result is too simplistic. If every eligible student in the country voted for the Lib-Dems, the party would not have secured enough votes for a working majority in the house of Commons. I live in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal constituency and I suspect like thousands of other voters in such seats, I voted tactically to keep the Tories out. I disagree with your assertion that the Lib-Dems have no power. Despite the fact that they secured the least number of votes of the three main parties, the Lib-Dems hold the balance of power. The Tories could not have formed a government without them. The fact is that the Lib-Dems lied and should be held to account for breaking their pre-election promise.

[Squashed_Fly]

How do you know they did? How do you know they didn't vote to stop the tuition fee increase, but the tories said no? It's all speculation really

[redken1]

27 Lib-Dem MPs, including all 17 cabinet ministers voted in favour of the 200 per cent rise in Tuition fees. Not speculation, but a fact that the motion would not have been carried without their support.

[Mitch9128]

Reading this morning why they are doing this. They are selling the tuition fees loans to the banks at a reduced rate, now. So for 36k of debt, the governemt gets 26k now, and the banks get the full 36k over time (possibly) in lieu of interest. Interesting that the banks are gambling with money again, although i doubt it will **** them up, unlike a 25 year old with 50k of debt hanging round his neck! >:(