University of Sussex second-most expensive outside London

A study has found that only the University of Oxford is more expensive than Sussex for first-year students

A study has found that only the University of Oxford is more expensive than Sussex for first-year students

First published in News
Last updated
by

THE University of Sussex has been named as the second most-costly for students outside of London.

Only the University of Oxford was found to be less affordable for first-year students in a study by HSBC.

For second-year students, who usually move out of university rooms and into private housing, it is even worse, with Sussex the costliest outside of London.

The findings will concern thousands of teenagers who will head to the city later this year after getting their A-Level results on Thursday.

Students told The Argus the findings were not surprising.

Michael Segalov, Student Union communications officer at the University of Sussex, said: “The problem at the moment with the maintenance grant is that only those in London get a higher amount. Everyone else gets the same, when clearly some cities are much more expensive than others. That should be looked at.

“Students also get hit with various costs relating to their course throughout their studies. From books and trips to sports membership, they all add up. They should be included with the course fee paid at the start.”

The survey was carried out on the 20 towns and cities with the largest student populations.

The costs taken into account included food, activities, university supplies, rent, public transport, and the cost of alcohol.

The University of Leicester was deemed the most affordable for first-year students followed by Cardiff and Nottingham.

Students in the top three were estimated to have a weekly spend of £196.47, £207.13 and £227.10.

In comparison, the bottom three outside of London were the University of Birmingham (£289.43), Sussex (£291.95) and Oxford (£310.95).

Sussex had the highest costs (£135) for weekly essentials, which includes food, activities and university supplies.

First-year rent came in at an average of £120 compared with the cheapest – the University of Newcastle at £87. The price of beer (five pints for £17) was the third highest nationally, while the cost of wine (two bottles for £11.98) was in line with the average.

Meanwhile, the cost of a weekly bus pass (£7.67) was one of the cheapest.

A spokeswoman for the University of Sussex said a range of financial services were available for students.

She said: “We have on-campus financial support: our Student Life Centre helps students budget and they can find part-time jobs via our Careers and Employability Centre.”

She said the students’ union also ran three bars, two campus shops and a lettings agency, all offering discounts.

A First-Generation Scholars scheme is also available for students with household incomes of less than £42,620 a year to receive reduced rent, cash bursaries and a fee waiver.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:27am Wed 20 Aug 14

rogerthefish says...

But how many Student towns have nightclubs on the beach where you can afterwards BBQ/drink and then just walk off and leave it there! name me another please ????
But how many Student towns have nightclubs on the beach where you can afterwards BBQ/drink and then just walk off and leave it there! name me another please ???? rogerthefish
  • Score: 15

7:17am Wed 20 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension! HJarrs
  • Score: -16

7:51am Wed 20 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue. G Wiley
  • Score: 3

8:43am Wed 20 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
You provide an excellent example of a baby boomer pulling up the ladder behind them.

University is just one cost, as I describe. Better keep you fingers crossed that they keep paying your pension.
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]You provide an excellent example of a baby boomer pulling up the ladder behind them. University is just one cost, as I describe. Better keep you fingers crossed that they keep paying your pension. HJarrs
  • Score: -11

8:52am Wed 20 Aug 14

Fight_Back says...

What relevance does the cost of beer and wine have ? They are luxuries. Besides - if students are paying nearly £12 for two bottles of wine they have more money than sense.
What relevance does the cost of beer and wine have ? They are luxuries. Besides - if students are paying nearly £12 for two bottles of wine they have more money than sense. Fight_Back
  • Score: 26

9:48am Wed 20 Aug 14

NickBrt says...

Students have no lack of money. They spend all their waking hours throwing alcohol down their neck, smoking dope and snorting coke. That must cost a fair bit?
Students have no lack of money. They spend all their waking hours throwing alcohol down their neck, smoking dope and snorting coke. That must cost a fair bit? NickBrt
  • Score: -4

9:59am Wed 20 Aug 14

Martha Gunn says...

Go Jarrs go!

Now he wants a state subsudy for good clubs and easy drugs.

Bonkers Greens.
Go Jarrs go! Now he wants a state subsudy for good clubs and easy drugs. Bonkers Greens. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 2

10:00am Wed 20 Aug 14

Martha Gunn says...

'Subsidy' even!
'Subsidy' even! Martha Gunn
  • Score: 1

12:11pm Wed 20 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

rogerthefish wrote:
But how many Student towns have nightclubs on the beach where you can afterwards BBQ/drink and then just walk off and leave it there! name me another please ????
Newcastle, perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: But how many Student towns have nightclubs on the beach where you can afterwards BBQ/drink and then just walk off and leave it there! name me another please ????[/p][/quote]Newcastle, perhaps? notslimjim
  • Score: 1

12:12pm Wed 20 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

Fight_Back wrote:
What relevance does the cost of beer and wine have ? They are luxuries. Besides - if students are paying nearly £12 for two bottles of wine they have more money than sense.
They might have taste.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: What relevance does the cost of beer and wine have ? They are luxuries. Besides - if students are paying nearly £12 for two bottles of wine they have more money than sense.[/p][/quote]They might have taste. notslimjim
  • Score: -2

2:55pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Jake Gale says...

I am a 4th year student at Sussex, and personally find this data unrepresentative.
I am from a low income family, so receive maximum support from the state, which comes to a monthly stipend of roughly £540, note this is then the max a student can get without bursaries, jobs, or external help. My rent a roughly average £420 a month. So I have £120 spare, per month. This means each week I have about £30 to spend.
£12, (not £7.67??) goes on a bus ticket, so that's £18.

I haven't even put in food, or even gas and electric bills.
I have £18 a week to spend on everything else. That's 5 pints and then I don't get to eat.
Students do not have a lot of money, we are not spending money on coke, and beer and all that crap. That is a loud image displayed by media and unfortunately the loudest of us. Those who do spend money on drugs and heavy drinking do so at serious expense and by putting themselves in debt.
The comments here seem by people who are not students, so my experiences as one are that we do not have much money, even less than this article seems to make out.
I am a 4th year student at Sussex, and personally find this data unrepresentative. I am from a low income family, so receive maximum support from the state, which comes to a monthly stipend of roughly £540, note this is then the max a student can get without bursaries, jobs, or external help. My rent a roughly average £420 a month. So I have £120 spare, per month. This means each week I have about £30 to spend. £12, (not £7.67??) goes on a bus ticket, so that's £18. I haven't even put in food, or even gas and electric bills. I have £18 a week to spend on everything else. That's 5 pints and then I don't get to eat. Students do not have a lot of money, we are not spending money on coke, and beer and all that crap. That is a loud image displayed by media and unfortunately the loudest of us. Those who do spend money on drugs and heavy drinking do so at serious expense and by putting themselves in debt. The comments here seem by people who are not students, so my experiences as one are that we do not have much money, even less than this article seems to make out. Jake Gale
  • Score: 20

3:06pm Wed 20 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
You provide an excellent example of a baby boomer pulling up the ladder behind them.

University is just one cost, as I describe. Better keep you fingers crossed that they keep paying your pension.
Several points:

1. The topic of the story was the cost of going to university - not the whole economic situation.
2. I did not go to university - because I couldn't afford to rather then not being able to. I got a proper job at 18 and worked hard to advance my career.
3. I am retired now by choice. I am not old enough to take a state pension, receive no support, and survive purely on my own resources.
4. I take responsibility for my life, unlike the left-wing activists you support who assume that the state should support them if they so desire.

So please take your baby-boomer pulling-up-the-ladde
r accusations and stick them up your a*se.

IMHO going to university is a privilege and should be seen as a valuable step on the route to a career - not an excuse to have 3-4 years fun at the expense of someone else.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]You provide an excellent example of a baby boomer pulling up the ladder behind them. University is just one cost, as I describe. Better keep you fingers crossed that they keep paying your pension.[/p][/quote]Several points: 1. The topic of the story was the cost of going to university - not the whole economic situation. 2. I did not go to university - because I couldn't afford to rather then not being able to. I got a proper job at 18 and worked hard to advance my career. 3. I am retired now by choice. I am not old enough to take a state pension, receive no support, and survive purely on my own resources. 4. I take responsibility for my life, unlike the left-wing activists you support who assume that the state should support them if they so desire. So please take your baby-boomer pulling-up-the-ladde r accusations and stick them up your a*se. IMHO going to university is a privilege and should be seen as a valuable step on the route to a career - not an excuse to have 3-4 years fun at the expense of someone else. G Wiley
  • Score: 7

5:35pm Wed 20 Aug 14

NickBrt says...

Dear Jake gale the comments I made come from being unfortunate enough to live next to a student house of multiple occupancy these past 6 years and I stand by all I said.
Dear Jake gale the comments I made come from being unfortunate enough to live next to a student house of multiple occupancy these past 6 years and I stand by all I said. NickBrt
  • Score: 3

5:47pm Wed 20 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
You provide an excellent example of a baby boomer pulling up the ladder behind them.

University is just one cost, as I describe. Better keep you fingers crossed that they keep paying your pension.
Several points:

1. The topic of the story was the cost of going to university - not the whole economic situation.
2. I did not go to university - because I couldn't afford to rather then not being able to. I got a proper job at 18 and worked hard to advance my career.
3. I am retired now by choice. I am not old enough to take a state pension, receive no support, and survive purely on my own resources.
4. I take responsibility for my life, unlike the left-wing activists you support who assume that the state should support them if they so desire.

So please take your baby-boomer pulling-up-the-ladde

r accusations and stick them up your a*se.

IMHO going to university is a privilege and should be seen as a valuable step on the route to a career - not an excuse to have 3-4 years fun at the expense of someone else.
1. University is one major cost, it needs to be seen in the wider context of other costs and potential earnings.
2. You mean you decided not to go. You could have gone to University at the most affordable time when there were grants and students could claim benefits in holidays. Proper job? I thought you said you worked in marketing?
3. Will today's students want to pay in perpetuity your state pension when you get there, your health care etc?
4. Usual drivel. The majority take responsibility for their lives, however it is hardly their fault if wages stagnate, university fees increase, house prices rise.

Most people I know worked hard to get their qualifications and I don't begrudge them having had a bit of fun on the way.

And I bet you are a baby boomer.
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]You provide an excellent example of a baby boomer pulling up the ladder behind them. University is just one cost, as I describe. Better keep you fingers crossed that they keep paying your pension.[/p][/quote]Several points: 1. The topic of the story was the cost of going to university - not the whole economic situation. 2. I did not go to university - because I couldn't afford to rather then not being able to. I got a proper job at 18 and worked hard to advance my career. 3. I am retired now by choice. I am not old enough to take a state pension, receive no support, and survive purely on my own resources. 4. I take responsibility for my life, unlike the left-wing activists you support who assume that the state should support them if they so desire. So please take your baby-boomer pulling-up-the-ladde r accusations and stick them up your a*se. IMHO going to university is a privilege and should be seen as a valuable step on the route to a career - not an excuse to have 3-4 years fun at the expense of someone else.[/p][/quote]1. University is one major cost, it needs to be seen in the wider context of other costs and potential earnings. 2. You mean you decided not to go. You could have gone to University at the most affordable time when there were grants and students could claim benefits in holidays. Proper job? I thought you said you worked in marketing? 3. Will today's students want to pay in perpetuity your state pension when you get there, your health care etc? 4. Usual drivel. The majority take responsibility for their lives, however it is hardly their fault if wages stagnate, university fees increase, house prices rise. Most people I know worked hard to get their qualifications and I don't begrudge them having had a bit of fun on the way. And I bet you are a baby boomer. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

7:35pm Wed 20 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

@Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single?

I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about?

No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens.

Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now.

And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'.

So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?
@Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single? I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about? No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens. Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now. And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'. So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself? G Wiley
  • Score: 2

7:48pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Three students living opposite me. Two cars, one a 13 plate. The year before, three students one new Mini convertible. This year the three of them have gone to a number of music festivals, which aren't cheap, and all of them are now on holiday abroad, one in Vietnam for a month.
It wasn't like this when I was a student.
These are the same kids who throw all their rubbish on the street, keep everyone up all night while we have to get up for work to pay their share of the council tax.
At the same time their landlords, some of whom are overseas landlords, rake in high rent profits without doing any maintenance.
The house opposite has been visited three times by the council's environmental health team trying to get the landlord to manage the issues with the poor structure of the building. What does the landlord do? Nothing, he lives abroad. The garden is a jungle, the guttering still hangs off the front pouring water down the front of the building.
The universities are nothing but industries which no longer have any commitment to British students, British industry or the communities they exist within.
Three students living opposite me. Two cars, one a 13 plate. The year before, three students one new Mini convertible. This year the three of them have gone to a number of music festivals, which aren't cheap, and all of them are now on holiday abroad, one in Vietnam for a month. It wasn't like this when I was a student. These are the same kids who throw all their rubbish on the street, keep everyone up all night while we have to get up for work to pay their share of the council tax. At the same time their landlords, some of whom are overseas landlords, rake in high rent profits without doing any maintenance. The house opposite has been visited three times by the council's environmental health team trying to get the landlord to manage the issues with the poor structure of the building. What does the landlord do? Nothing, he lives abroad. The garden is a jungle, the guttering still hangs off the front pouring water down the front of the building. The universities are nothing but industries which no longer have any commitment to British students, British industry or the communities they exist within. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 10

8:04pm Wed 20 Aug 14

whatone says...

G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget! whatone
  • Score: -1

8:18pm Wed 20 Aug 14

fredaj says...

whatone wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business".

In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more.

Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams.

Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget![/p][/quote]Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business". In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more. Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams. Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way. fredaj
  • Score: 3

8:20pm Wed 20 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

whatone wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
How about we leave the EU and scrap the foreign aid budget, seeing as we already fund foreigners living in the UK?
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget![/p][/quote]How about we leave the EU and scrap the foreign aid budget, seeing as we already fund foreigners living in the UK? notslimjim
  • Score: -1

8:39pm Wed 20 Aug 14

whatone says...

fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business".

In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more.

Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams.

Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.
So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'!

For students its actually lose, lose!

The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone!
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget![/p][/quote]Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business". In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more. Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams. Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.[/p][/quote]So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'! For students its actually lose, lose! The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone! whatone
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Wed 20 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
@Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single?

I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about?

No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens.

Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now.

And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'.

So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?
Glad you got that off your chest.

And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers.

Good look with the B&H bus application.
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single? I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about? No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens. Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now. And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'. So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?[/p][/quote]Glad you got that off your chest. And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers. Good look with the B&H bus application. HJarrs
  • Score: -4

9:32pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Young people don't have to take on debt to succeed and we should stop selling this outdated idea. Look at some of the world's most successful business people and innovators. Many of them were bedroom business people.
In this town builders, plasterers, tilers and tradesmen have more cash and capital than many of those university educated people in professions or those who paid for hobby degrees which would never translate into employment.
Many companies are also now seeking out high performing apprentices from sixth form colleges to train them including the one I work for. They pluck the high performers and pay for their university education. The company I work for pays its undergraduates £22,000 p/a plus their uni fees through to graduation.
If companies want success they pay for it.
The world changes all the time and moving with it is the way it goes. If the UK had stuck to paying grants for the top six per cent of the UK population to go to uni we could still afford it as a nation.
Instead new Labour opened up unis to anyone who had attended school and now almost every person who applies for a job has a degree and many of the degrees are absolutely worthless and many who have received them wouldn't have even gained A levels 20 years ago.
Most employers will tell you they look at the type of degree and where it was obtained. If it isn't a top ten uni the applications go in the bin. Why employ second best.
Young people don't have to take on debt to succeed and we should stop selling this outdated idea. Look at some of the world's most successful business people and innovators. Many of them were bedroom business people. In this town builders, plasterers, tilers and tradesmen have more cash and capital than many of those university educated people in professions or those who paid for hobby degrees which would never translate into employment. Many companies are also now seeking out high performing apprentices from sixth form colleges to train them including the one I work for. They pluck the high performers and pay for their university education. The company I work for pays its undergraduates £22,000 p/a plus their uni fees through to graduation. If companies want success they pay for it. The world changes all the time and moving with it is the way it goes. If the UK had stuck to paying grants for the top six per cent of the UK population to go to uni we could still afford it as a nation. Instead new Labour opened up unis to anyone who had attended school and now almost every person who applies for a job has a degree and many of the degrees are absolutely worthless and many who have received them wouldn't have even gained A levels 20 years ago. Most employers will tell you they look at the type of degree and where it was obtained. If it isn't a top ten uni the applications go in the bin. Why employ second best. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 5

11:01pm Wed 20 Aug 14

fredaj says...

whatone wrote:
fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business".

In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more.

Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams.

Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.
So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'!

For students its actually lose, lose!

The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone!
Where did I say Big Business should pay nothing?

I actually said that however much business pays, it will never to be enough to cover the cost of all the dreams, schemes and ideas that are put forward as a way of spending the booty.

Other funding methods have to be found and where students are concerned it is quite simple - if you do not earn more than average, you pay nothing to cover the cost of your further education, while if you earn more than average, you pay something.

Either way, the vast majority of students will never pay back the full value of their loans and in reality, the further education bill will just continue to be picked up by the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget![/p][/quote]Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business". In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more. Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams. Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.[/p][/quote]So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'! For students its actually lose, lose! The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone![/p][/quote]Where did I say Big Business should pay nothing? I actually said that however much business pays, it will never to be enough to cover the cost of all the dreams, schemes and ideas that are put forward as a way of spending the booty. Other funding methods have to be found and where students are concerned it is quite simple - if you do not earn more than average, you pay nothing to cover the cost of your further education, while if you earn more than average, you pay something. Either way, the vast majority of students will never pay back the full value of their loans and in reality, the further education bill will just continue to be picked up by the tax payer. fredaj
  • Score: 0

11:12pm Wed 20 Aug 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
@Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single?

I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about?

No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens.

Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now.

And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'.

So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?
Glad you got that off your chest.

And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers.

Good look with the B&H bus application.
The government should never have called these "loans", "loans" and then people like you would never have been able to use phrases like "eye watering debt" to frighten young people from university.

The amount "borrowed" is irrelevant. Earn little and you pay back nothing, earn a lot and you pay a percentage of your earnings over a certain value, just like income tax.

These "loans" have no impact on your ability to take on debt or a mortgage as they are disregarded and they are written off after a certain number of years.

It's simply a "graduate tax" and I will never understand why the political class felt the "loan" path was the best way to sell the concept of students who do well from their education making a small contribution towards its cost.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single? I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about? No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens. Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now. And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'. So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?[/p][/quote]Glad you got that off your chest. And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers. Good look with the B&H bus application.[/p][/quote]The government should never have called these "loans", "loans" and then people like you would never have been able to use phrases like "eye watering debt" to frighten young people from university. The amount "borrowed" is irrelevant. Earn little and you pay back nothing, earn a lot and you pay a percentage of your earnings over a certain value, just like income tax. These "loans" have no impact on your ability to take on debt or a mortgage as they are disregarded and they are written off after a certain number of years. It's simply a "graduate tax" and I will never understand why the political class felt the "loan" path was the best way to sell the concept of students who do well from their education making a small contribution towards its cost. fredaj
  • Score: 0

4:53am Thu 21 Aug 14

Valentinian says...

Students bring so much to the town, Sti's and unemployment and drugs. OK So not many leaving Sussex Uni with a colouring in degree manage to get a job, but they dont go on to live in a beautiful place like Worthing do they, leave them alone! Also a BIG HELLO to the new encampment moving in this Thursday Morning at 1.00 am to the Devils Dyke and Waterhall..... have fun!
Students bring so much to the town, Sti's and unemployment and drugs. OK So not many leaving Sussex Uni with a colouring in degree manage to get a job, but they dont go on to live in a beautiful place like Worthing do they, leave them alone! Also a BIG HELLO to the new encampment moving in this Thursday Morning at 1.00 am to the Devils Dyke and Waterhall..... have fun! Valentinian
  • Score: 4

7:43am Thu 21 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
@Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single?

I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about?

No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens.

Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now.

And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'.

So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?
Glad you got that off your chest.

And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers.

Good look with the B&H bus application.
The government should never have called these "loans", "loans" and then people like you would never have been able to use phrases like "eye watering debt" to frighten young people from university.

The amount "borrowed" is irrelevant. Earn little and you pay back nothing, earn a lot and you pay a percentage of your earnings over a certain value, just like income tax.

These "loans" have no impact on your ability to take on debt or a mortgage as they are disregarded and they are written off after a certain number of years.

It's simply a "graduate tax" and I will never understand why the political class felt the "loan" path was the best way to sell the concept of students who do well from their education making a small contribution towards its cost.
I have much more time for a graduate tax, those that benefit most financially pay the most. Any graduate tax would need to be set at a rate that reflects the benefit to us all of having a well educated workforce.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single? I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about? No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens. Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now. And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'. So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?[/p][/quote]Glad you got that off your chest. And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers. Good look with the B&H bus application.[/p][/quote]The government should never have called these "loans", "loans" and then people like you would never have been able to use phrases like "eye watering debt" to frighten young people from university. The amount "borrowed" is irrelevant. Earn little and you pay back nothing, earn a lot and you pay a percentage of your earnings over a certain value, just like income tax. These "loans" have no impact on your ability to take on debt or a mortgage as they are disregarded and they are written off after a certain number of years. It's simply a "graduate tax" and I will never understand why the political class felt the "loan" path was the best way to sell the concept of students who do well from their education making a small contribution towards its cost.[/p][/quote]I have much more time for a graduate tax, those that benefit most financially pay the most. Any graduate tax would need to be set at a rate that reflects the benefit to us all of having a well educated workforce. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

11:55am Thu 21 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
@Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single?

I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about?

No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens.

Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now.

And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'.

So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?
Glad you got that off your chest.

And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers.

Good look with the B&H bus application.
The government should never have called these "loans", "loans" and then people like you would never have been able to use phrases like "eye watering debt" to frighten young people from university.

The amount "borrowed" is irrelevant. Earn little and you pay back nothing, earn a lot and you pay a percentage of your earnings over a certain value, just like income tax.

These "loans" have no impact on your ability to take on debt or a mortgage as they are disregarded and they are written off after a certain number of years.

It's simply a "graduate tax" and I will never understand why the political class felt the "loan" path was the best way to sell the concept of students who do well from their education making a small contribution towards its cost.
A sum of money is given to them that requires repayment.

It's a loan.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: @Hjarrs - glad you are reading some of my posts - yes - I was in sales and marketing for a while - might do you some good to get some exposure to selling principles - rather than just insulting everyone as usual. You must be hell to live with - I assume you must be single? I was also in other jobs over the years including programming and planning. What was it you said you did? Oh no - you keep everything about what you do secret - I wonder what you are so embarrassed about? No - I could not go to university 'at a most affordable time' - I won't explain why but I had family care commitments. Thank you for your typically arrogant attitude of the superior, know everything, but won't listen to anyone else, greens. Regarding paying my health care and state pension - well I've been paying my contributions for over 30 years and supporting those of pensionable age just like it has been for many years - there is no 'pot' - and the ever increasing life span means that more and more of those in work will have to support more of the elderly. Yes - this will be bound to case a problem in the future unless there are more people in work paying taxes to support them - or the elderly will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions - as is being encouraged now. And would you mind defining what you mean by baby boomer - according to Wikipedia I am a 'Trailing-Edge Boomer born between 1956 and 1964'. So perhaps I am a baby boomer - what do you call yourself?[/p][/quote]Glad you got that off your chest. And my point is, if we load up the next generation with eye watering levels of debt they are highly unlikely to want to support their peers. Good look with the B&H bus application.[/p][/quote]The government should never have called these "loans", "loans" and then people like you would never have been able to use phrases like "eye watering debt" to frighten young people from university. The amount "borrowed" is irrelevant. Earn little and you pay back nothing, earn a lot and you pay a percentage of your earnings over a certain value, just like income tax. These "loans" have no impact on your ability to take on debt or a mortgage as they are disregarded and they are written off after a certain number of years. It's simply a "graduate tax" and I will never understand why the political class felt the "loan" path was the best way to sell the concept of students who do well from their education making a small contribution towards its cost.[/p][/quote]A sum of money is given to them that requires repayment. It's a loan. HTH notslimjim
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Thu 21 Aug 14

whatone says...

fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business".

In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more.

Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams.

Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.
So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'!

For students its actually lose, lose!

The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone!
Where did I say Big Business should pay nothing?

I actually said that however much business pays, it will never to be enough to cover the cost of all the dreams, schemes and ideas that are put forward as a way of spending the booty.

Other funding methods have to be found and where students are concerned it is quite simple - if you do not earn more than average, you pay nothing to cover the cost of your further education, while if you earn more than average, you pay something.

Either way, the vast majority of students will never pay back the full value of their loans and in reality, the further education bill will just continue to be picked up by the tax payer.
Well I guess then that £120bn per year in tax avoidance isn't very much to you.

But it would pay for an awful lot!

Removing university fees would only cost £4.5bn (and already the treasury is losing almost £2.5bn a year on those loans), and reinstating grants would only be £3bn.

That still leaves over £112bn to pay for many of those 'dreams'.

Sorry if the truth hurts ;-)
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget![/p][/quote]Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business". In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more. Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams. Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.[/p][/quote]So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'! For students its actually lose, lose! The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone![/p][/quote]Where did I say Big Business should pay nothing? I actually said that however much business pays, it will never to be enough to cover the cost of all the dreams, schemes and ideas that are put forward as a way of spending the booty. Other funding methods have to be found and where students are concerned it is quite simple - if you do not earn more than average, you pay nothing to cover the cost of your further education, while if you earn more than average, you pay something. Either way, the vast majority of students will never pay back the full value of their loans and in reality, the further education bill will just continue to be picked up by the tax payer.[/p][/quote]Well I guess then that £120bn per year in tax avoidance isn't very much to you. But it would pay for an awful lot! Removing university fees would only cost £4.5bn (and already the treasury is losing almost £2.5bn a year on those loans), and reinstating grants would only be £3bn. That still leaves over £112bn to pay for many of those 'dreams'. Sorry if the truth hurts ;-) whatone
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Thu 21 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

whatone wrote:
fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
fredaj wrote:
whatone wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension!
So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education?

The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners?

Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects?

If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.
How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place!

The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget!
Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business".

In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more.

Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams.

Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.
So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'!

For students its actually lose, lose!

The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone!
Where did I say Big Business should pay nothing?

I actually said that however much business pays, it will never to be enough to cover the cost of all the dreams, schemes and ideas that are put forward as a way of spending the booty.

Other funding methods have to be found and where students are concerned it is quite simple - if you do not earn more than average, you pay nothing to cover the cost of your further education, while if you earn more than average, you pay something.

Either way, the vast majority of students will never pay back the full value of their loans and in reality, the further education bill will just continue to be picked up by the tax payer.
Well I guess then that £120bn per year in tax avoidance isn't very much to you.

But it would pay for an awful lot!

Removing university fees would only cost £4.5bn (and already the treasury is losing almost £2.5bn a year on those loans), and reinstating grants would only be £3bn.

That still leaves over £112bn to pay for many of those 'dreams'.

Sorry if the truth hurts ;-)
The replacement for Trident will cost £100 billion over the 25 year life, a complete waste given its lack of deterrent and can never be fired, so that alone pays for university fees (or other useful things like a lot of housing, renewables etc).
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I really do fear that heaping the costs of long term economic failure on the shoulders on the young (including university costs, high housing rents and buying costs, stagnating wages and declining benefits) is going to lead to declining living standards for them and intergenerational conflict. They are unlikely to want to pay your pension![/p][/quote]So, following your left wing ideologies, who should pay for students to spend 3-4 years in further education? The state? Perhaps financed by increased taxation on big businesses and higher wage earners? Perhaps they should consider the cost before deciding to start a degree course that potentially offers no real job prospects? If they plan their courses with an aim of getting a financially rewarding career then costs should not be an issue.[/p][/quote]How about making sure 'big business' pays their fair share of tax in the first place! The amount that Google, Amazon and Vodaphone 'avoid' each year alone would pay for the entire university budget![/p][/quote]Every time someone thinks public spending should be increased by a couple more billion we get "tax big business". In the last 4 years, I've heard a100 ways to spend more money and I've heard "get business to pay their share" a 100 times more. Yes, it would be good to stop to multi-Nationals from playing the system and yes, it would be good to close tax havens and avoidance schemes but it still wouldn't raise enough - not even close - to cover the costs of all these dreams. Kids who go to university have two ways to go. First, earn less than average and never have to pay your loan back or second, earn oddles and pay a proportion of that extra income back towards the cost of your education. Surely - for the students, it is win win either way.[/p][/quote]So you think 'big business' should pay diddly whilst enslaving financially the next generations in order that they find jobs to further enrich those same 'big businesses'! For students its actually lose, lose! The only way out is to either study abroad or graduate and emigrate - and don't tell the bar stewards where you've gone![/p][/quote]Where did I say Big Business should pay nothing? I actually said that however much business pays, it will never to be enough to cover the cost of all the dreams, schemes and ideas that are put forward as a way of spending the booty. Other funding methods have to be found and where students are concerned it is quite simple - if you do not earn more than average, you pay nothing to cover the cost of your further education, while if you earn more than average, you pay something. Either way, the vast majority of students will never pay back the full value of their loans and in reality, the further education bill will just continue to be picked up by the tax payer.[/p][/quote]Well I guess then that £120bn per year in tax avoidance isn't very much to you. But it would pay for an awful lot! Removing university fees would only cost £4.5bn (and already the treasury is losing almost £2.5bn a year on those loans), and reinstating grants would only be £3bn. That still leaves over £112bn to pay for many of those 'dreams'. Sorry if the truth hurts ;-)[/p][/quote]The replacement for Trident will cost £100 billion over the 25 year life, a complete waste given its lack of deterrent and can never be fired, so that alone pays for university fees (or other useful things like a lot of housing, renewables etc). HJarrs
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree