DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
MT Lives!
HTML https://mtlives.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2209--------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: Trident Date: June 28, 2019, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/7billion-bill-astaxpayer-picksup-tab-halfof-student-loans/
Is this fair?
IMO, no, its not.
TBH I doubt many people know what its costing.
Whats your thoughts?
#Post#: 2215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: doc Date: June 28, 2019, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
not fair at all especially on the very people student loans
where trying to help, they now end up with an expensive
sometimes worthless degree and they never have to pay it back.
pushes up the price , distorts true market value , moral hazard
.
couldn't think of a worst case scenario . government gets
involved and f4cks up the free market and its costs everyone a
fortune whilst helping no one but harming pretty much everyone.
As if we weren't in enough debt already. But in order to carry
on with QE and push inflation higher they need prgrammes like
this to expand the ponzi scheme.
#Post#: 2217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: Bookerman Date: June 28, 2019, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not fair no. I despise all of these government schemes as most
of them are a way for them to shaft more cash out of us under
the guise of helping people. You can bet a % somehow finds its
way back to MP’s pockets, same as foreign aid.
#Post#: 2223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: doc Date: June 28, 2019, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3-_r_t7AZU&t=10s
#Post#: 2224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: Dazzz Date: June 28, 2019, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm happy for cheap/free tuition fees for things that are
important/in short supply such as medical, engineering,science
etc and maybe even some arts but not for useless shit.
#Post#: 2263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: doc Date: June 29, 2019, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dazzz link=topic=129.msg2224#msg2224
date=1561740199]
I'm happy for cheap/free tuition fees for things that are
important/in short supply such as medical, engineering,science
etc and maybe even some arts but not for useless ****.
[/quote]
Nothing is free , someone somewhere is paying . when its dressed
up as free it's never cheap.
Proof is in the pudding , people have worthless degrees that
have no economic value that they wouldn't have paid for
themselves , they got someone else to pay and that's us lowly
tax payers.
Broken window fallacy in new clothes once again.
#Post#: 2264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: Teapot Date: June 29, 2019, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think what Daz is saying is that if the UK has a shortage of
nuclear engineers, or even simply engineers in any form (im an
engineer) or medical etc, then those degrees should be free if
it benefits the country. things like history of art, well if you
want to study that then probably not a benefit to the general
population so probably fairer to pay.
thought id better read article before replying and lol at me
suggesting art didn't end paying back the loan. The thing is i'm
not 100% on the article, reason being over the course of the
repayment period there is no mention of the interest added. It
is possible that the loans are paid back to a higher proportion
than suggested but possibly not the compounded interest. Besides
if the threshold isn't raised for a few years then this will
change a fair bit
#Post#: 2265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: Dazzz Date: June 29, 2019, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Teapot link=topic=129.msg2264#msg2264
date=1561848743]
I think what Daz is saying is that if the UK has a shortage of
nuclear engineers, or even simply engineers in any form (im an
engineer) or medical etc, then those degrees should be free if
it benefits the country. things like history of art, well if you
want to study that then probably not a benefit to the general
population so probably fairer to pay.
[/quote]
Yes exactly this. If it means me paying a couple of £ more tax,
and it benefits the country as a whole, I'm fine with it.
#Post#: 2267--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: Newcy Date: June 30, 2019, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayers money being wasted on education (even silly degrees)
is not the worst crime in the world. It's not even the biggest
waste of taxpayers money.
#Post#: 2268--------------------------------------------------
Re: Taxpayer paying for student loans, right or wrong?
By: doc Date: June 30, 2019, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Teapot link=topic=129.msg2264#msg2264
date=1561848743]
I think what Daz is saying is that if the UK has a shortage of
nuclear engineers, or even simply engineers in any form (im an
engineer) or medical etc, then those degrees should be free if
it benefits the country. things like history of art, well if you
want to study that then probably not a benefit to the general
population so probably fairer to pay.
thought id better read article before replying and lol at me
suggesting art didn't end paying back the loan. The thing is i'm
not 100% on the article, reason being over the course of the
repayment period there is no mention of the interest added. It
is possible that the loans are paid back to a higher proportion
than suggested but possibly not the compounded interest. Besides
if the threshold isn't raised for a few years then this will
change a fair bit
[/quote]
If there was a shortage of nuclear engineers the free market
would sort it out better than any government , unfortunately
with these government programmes , its always going to be cost
prohibitive to train UK people rather than look at migrants ,
just like with the cost of training our own doctors and nurses .
Dazz you paying a few extra £ for the benefit of the country ,
its always the exact opposite , the government have no
customers, no supply and demand o they will never invest where
its needed, private businesses go bust if the dont invest where
needed . If a nuclear powerplant wanted to train an engineer to
create energy , they could pay 100-200k in training , when the
gov do this , it means we spend billions on people getting
worthless degrees and this is to everyone detriment . Its no
different than subsidising private companies to train there
staff on new equipment .
If you pay a tax for this and energy prices never came down its
a bad investment , if there was no taxes you could choose wether
to invest in someone or not and see what your return on
investment would be , at the moment we get all the risk and no
reward .
If i enrolled in a tax payer paid degree to be an NBA player it
would be a total waste , although if i posted a few videos
online showing crazy skills and 7ft 5 build and 3 pointers from
miles out people might choose to crowd fund me if the incentive
was good enough.
but the whole idea of student loans was supposedly equality (
why do rich people get all the degrees)
then to risk offending someone they can never make the argument
that a nuclear degree is more important than a degree in liberal
arts or LGBTism , they want to bribe both sets of people in
voting for them , and they are using other people money to do it
, so they dont really care.
Personally I would struggle to send my own child to uni and this
is because i pay 40% tax , I would rather invest in my own child
than someone else's , but unfortunately they have removed this
option from me. Think of one government programme that works
well where they dont have a monopoly so there is equal
comparison, or where they havent created that much regulation as
too nobble the private business.
We have been having children for tens of thousands of years
delivered by elders , now it will cost 100k+ to be a midwife
which is a massive cost to society , the only positive argument
is that birth survival has increased and some children that
would have died lived, this means there are more people , less
resources bigger debts and this is also a net decrease for
society. The highest birth rate countries do not have
university trained midwives ( Niger) 7 kids per parents. The
WHO are investing money in this area ( from taxes) so maybe they
can get this up to 10
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page