Interesting

In that case, thirdly, let’s recognise that this means the debt does not have anything to do with education per se: it’s just been a convenient way of dropping part of government debt onto a particular group in society who may pay 10% extra tax for much of their lives as a result and be denied the chance to afford a house, raise a family or save as a consequence.

So people paying more tax makes them poorer, does it Spudda?

18 comments on “Interesting

  1. Taxing the rich is bad, mkay?

    Consistency is such a bugbear of small minds. What does he think of the top taxation rate?

  2. Only Tory taxes, mind.
    Labour taxes are infinitely enriching.
    Because reasons..

  3. “…Only a relatively small part of all student debt created has been repaid or sold (I admit I do not have the precise figure to hand: it does not change my argument). As a result what has really happened is that the government has continued to fund universities. It has just pretended to do so through a balance sheet account called the student loan account….”

    In that case what’s the problem Spud? If this is only the illusion of debt there is nothing to cancel is there. Except actually there’s no magic money tree and there is that £11billion that gets loaded onto the working population. That means poorer people who suffer regressive taxation so your sons get their entitlement, er sorry, their education

  4. I’ve got a student loan from ’04-’07 I’m paying back at something like £50-£75 a month. My degree allows me to earn a shedload more than £75 a month extra over the jobs I’d get without it.

  5. And that’s the key to this: it’s his sons’ turn soon. And, whatever he says about the world in general, when it comes to his own he knows damn well that tax is a cost and and burden.

    It is the same ‘duality’ that Bloke in North Dorset’s wanky lefty sailors display.

  6. @Rhyds

    Good for you. I’d wager your degree isn’t in Media Studies or Sociology. Forty years ago, any degree was a (reasonably good) marker for those in the brightest 10-20% of the population. Today, it’s a marker for being in the top half, and therefore intrinsically much less valuable, unless it’s in a relevant subject.

  7. …who may pay 10% extra tax for much of their lives as a result.

    Surely that equates to having 10% more joy than other people? Such luck!

  8. “any degree was a (reasonably good) marker for those in the brightest 10-20% of the population”

    Thick as pigshit 10-20% marker for some onlookers, of course.
    But opinions differ

  9. @Chris Miller

    It’s not a top degree my any means (Computer Networks from a former poly) but they did teach courses aimed at getting folk jobs, rather than to spend 3 years timewasing.

  10. So when kids apply for student loans and are accepted, they should curse their bad luck.

  11. As usual, one of the greatest risks a con-man has is getting caught in an internal inconsistency or contradiction in his pitch.

  12. You’re all just outmoded in your thinking, thanks to neoliberal indoctrination.

    If making the recipients of degrees pay is bad, and if making everyone pay is also bad, then a third way is required.

    This third way has been identified by Corbyn: make education free. Simple. .

  13. 10% extra tax? I did a spreadsheet after the previous thread and running it all the way up to £250,000 income it only just manages to get to 8%. “The 1%” on 80 grand pay an extra 6%, and the median income of 25grand pays that long-standing campaign slogan “a penny on tax for education”.

  14. “This third way has been identified by Corbyn: make education free. Simple.”

    Nothing . . . NOTHING . . . would be more expensive than “free” education.

  15. Education brings great profit to the state. As does all ‘progress’ eg feminism (who otherwise would work in a button factory)=All taxes
    In the end you all work for the government.

  16. Gamecock: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

    P. J. O’Rourke

  17. Next February, I will finally pay off my student loan: I graduated in 2007. I really don’t see the problem with it: I didn’t have to pay tuition or living costs out of my own pocket then, so I’ve been paying for it since. And it’s a damn good deal: the interest rate is very low and you don’t have to make any payments at all until you can afford to.

    I don’t understand why this is a bad thing. Why should anyone else pay for me to fuck about for three years? Mind you, perhaps I’m just bitter because I’ve almost paid mine off. Maybe I’d vote Labour if Corbyn offered to pay off my car loan, or my mortgage… or maybe I’d emigrate if he were elected.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.