Dabz for prime minister!! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Printable View
Dabz for prime minister!! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
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.
nah no probs mate, debate is boring if everyone's worried about upsetting everyone else!
Unlike our curent Deputy Prime Minister, I would have alot more faith in Dabz honouring his promises. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]Quote:
Originally Posted by freddieb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabz
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?
Unfortunate, but trueQuote:
Originally Posted by monday21
Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
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?
Lurkalot and I went to uni quite a long time ago, but the same principle applies and therefore I think it's relevant.Quote:
it will be the average joe who suffers.
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.
[quote=Ducatista]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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel-nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch9128
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?[/quote]
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. >:(
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista
No, savings are not income, the interest that is generated from the savings is income.Quote:
Sure, and a lottery win would be savings i.e. 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.
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.
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.Quote:
Duc regardless of whether you think savings are income
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?
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.
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 ;)
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!
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
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]
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
Thankfully, some companies are willing to take that risk, and more. I am very fortunate to work for one of them. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaredy_Cat
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][/quote]
Fantastic to see that some companies out there are actually switched on and really pleased that you've benefitted from it [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
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.
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]Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch9128
http://www.leftfootforward.org/image...ees-pledge.jpg
Call in the fraud squad, anybody still wondering why the students are angry?
"A Fairer Alternative" ??????? >:(
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.
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!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch9128
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.
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!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
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.[/quote]
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!
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.
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
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.
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! >:(