Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

Glorianny

I can't help wondering how someone comes to have such a very materialistic view of life. Can anyone really put a price on everything? If a carer has a degree in English and isn't paying back his student loan, because he is on such low pay, but as he dresses and feeds his patient, he chats to them about Shakespeare or post modern literature, is his degree really wasted? And is he really defrauding the tax payer?
Or is he providing a service which is worth far more than any lawyer ?

I have to agree. IMO, to be honest, I’m far more concerned about the money this govt has squandered over the last 14 years than I’ll ever be at the comparatively few people who don’t pay back their student law or “diddle” their benefits.

It’s ironic really that anyone should object given that we are the generation who benefitted so much from “free” higher education!

Dickens said:
Also, economically. The Arts draw people to the theatre, exhibitions, concerts, galleries, festivals, etc. The towns and cities where these events take place all benefit financially.

This is what I was getting at above when I mentioned ’Swiftonomics’. Taylor Swift apparently boosted the economies of the towns and cities she visited on her tour by billions of pounds.

And that is without the benefit to mental health that people getting together to celebrate a shared taste in music can bring, or the numerous teaching opportunities in analysing lyrics, or the joy of singing along in the car with your children.

Germanshepherdsmum

The point is, Iam, so many never repay their student loans, so the taxpayer pays for their education. What the country needs is people who will pay off their loans and pay taxes. The Arts are well and good when we can afford them . More mental health specialists would do our mental health more good.

No, our national mental health would be more helped by everyone have a reasonable amount of skill in one or more non-intellectual occupation, which is completely absorbing and takes all of our attention while we are doing it. If we can retreat to that when life gets stressful (as it always does) we can forget the problems at work, the unsatisfactory relationship, the bills piling up, and allow our minds to relax while we concentrate on something that has a beginning a middle and an end and gives us a glow of satisfaction when it is completed. The resulting endorphins are as effective as chemical drugs for keeping at bay anxiety and depression.

In my post referred to by GSM are three things which I believe enable someone from a "working-class" family to make the most of him/herself, They are health, education and confidence.

Clearly GSM had plenty of the last, when she set off to train for a profession which would give her job satisfaction and a quality of life she would not have enjoyed otherwise. Not all those living in a rundown housing estate are so lucky. Perhaps they come from a family who are unable to get employment and have no savings, for whatever reason, and their schoolfriends have no plans beyond "the dole" and gathering in a gang to ogle girls and repel rival gangs on their territory.

A child in those circumstances will have no confidence in his/her ability to do anything more challenging, more interesting only to follow in their parents' footsteps. A minority find confidence in a grim determination not to go under in the tide of apathy - but most will drown.

But suppose that child likes to draw cartoon characters, or to invent dramatic stories, or play tunes on a guitar, or to make scraps of wood into toys, or care for animals. These qualities may never be skilled enough to take them into careers where they will have enough spare cash to develop a lifestyle where they own a Merc and a big house in the Home Counties, (even hitting the bigtime in the entertainment and art worlds takes luck as well as talent) but if the skills are nurtured they will still have them as adults. They will be using them for the benefit of the people they look after. - and for their own mental well-being, keeping them from needing medical attention.

Society is wider than just the intellectual professions.

I'm always disappointed at how colleges training people in vital vocations are continually the poor relation to universities.

Iam64

Germanshepherdsmum

I disagree, Elegran. An individual should not be paid for from the public purse to take a degree which is purely for their personal satisfaction and will not lead to employment which will, per se and through taxation, benefit society.

Students pay tuition fees so who is being paid from the public purse?
The Arts contribute to society in so many ways. Our mental health benefits from the Arts.

The Arts contribute to society in so many ways. Our mental health benefits from the Arts.

Also, economically. The Arts draw people to the theatre, exhibitions, concerts, galleries, festivals, etc. The towns and cities where these events take place all benefit financially.

The National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, and the Tate, attract tourists - as do music festivals, both open-air and in concert halls.

As "Global Britain" we cannot get left behind in the Arts.

David, nobody is forcing anyone to study for what has been described as ‘a Mickey Mouse degree’, as you are implying two of your grandchildren did. The days when only those with really good A level results went to university are, sadly, long gone. Now it’s seen as a must-have experience. I believe that’s completely wrong. So many who go to university would be far better off with an apprenticeship, or simply finding a job. I suspect your grandchildren working as a receptionist and part-time in catering are among them.

David49

I now have 4 grandchildren that have completed university the 2 that chose career training courses are working in graduate level jobs, the 2 that did not, 1 is a receptionist, 1 part time catering.

That’s fairly typical half the graduates are not doing graduate work. Some universities are only interested in bums on seats and offer very poor quality courses.

With respect, David, what do you mean by a ‘graduate level job’? If your grandchildren got these jobs without degrees they can’t be ‘graduate level’, as the term refers to jobs that only graduates can apply for.

Sweeping generalisations about degrees, universities and graduates (never mind uninformed comments about the quality of courses) really get in the way of proper debate about education. If non-graduates are getting so-called ‘graduate level jobs’ then of course there won’t be enough for graduates. That’s about numbers, not the quality of students or courses.

Unless you are an external examiner with a remit to check on course quality, how are you in a position to pronounce your grandchildren’s education ‘poor quality’ and unless you are on the board of a university how do you know their motivation? Funding is set by governments. If the only way to get money in is to increase numbers then motives don’t matter. I am very critical of the way universities have become businesses, and of the salaries and perks given to Vice Chancellors, but whether I agree with many of their decisions or not (I don’t, and I speak as someone who has worked in universities for decades) their motives have to be to keep their institutions open, by complying with funding models set by governments.

The point is, Iam, so many never repay their student loans, so the taxpayer pays for their education. What the country needs is people who will pay off their loans and pay taxes. The Arts are well and good when we can afford them . More mental health specialists would do our mental health more good.

Germanshepherdsmum

I disagree, Elegran. An individual should not be paid for from the public purse to take a degree which is purely for their personal satisfaction and will not lead to employment which will, per se and through taxation, benefit society.

Students pay tuition fees so who is being paid from the public purse?
The Arts contribute to society in so many ways. Our mental health benefits from the Arts.

I now have 4 grandchildren that have completed university the 2 that chose career training courses are working in graduate level jobs, the 2 that did not, 1 is a receptionist, 1 part time catering.

That’s fairly typical half the graduates are not doing graduate work. Some universities are only interested in bums on seats and offer very poor quality courses.

Elegran

We must agree to differ, Germanshepherdsmum I don't believe that knowledge (which consists of education plus experience and contemplation) is a luxury. It is an essential. Without it, a person is an atomaton who lives only to work and to collect money. We are all blessed with minds. curiosity, and the capacity for insight, which should all be exercised as often as we exercise our bodies. Exposure to as much education as we can absorb is a part of that, and it ought to be available to all.

Local authorities used to run many inexpensive courses in all kindsof subjects, from basic 3Rs for those who adults, through vocational classes to skills for leisure time. These have dwindled in many places, along with library closures, due to the LAs funds being reduced.

Two things that help lift people out of poverty and ignorance are subsidised education and healthcare. Knowledge is meant to be shared, and a nation which grudges it to its citizens is poorer for the lack of it.

Well said Elegran.

correction (like teaching in Universities)

I don't think it's realistic to expect 18 year olds to all know what their career path will be, whether they will be fortunate enough to be able to reasonably quickly pay back their loans.

Some do, but dont "make it" for a number of reasons
Some dont, but find surprising success.

The world of work is also changing. Employers often now offer limited term contracts including in professions where previously you had a career for life. (like teaching in) There are not the guarantees any more despite best intentions.

Education is indeed more than career training, as others have said, it involves people skills and other aspects of life Elegran and others have described. And writers, artists, people who enrich our lives.

Agreed, Glorianny. And if he then runs an class in poetry appreciation that gets people out of the house and into the community centre, or organises a writing competition for primary school children that piques their interest in literature, who is counting the beans? If even one of the old people in the community centre doesn't succumb to depression and loneliness, or one of the children goes on to write a book or become a teacher instead of a dropout, his contribution goes even further.

Not everything can be measured in money, particularly not the value of human beings.

I can't help wondering how someone comes to have such a very materialistic view of life. Can anyone really put a price on everything? If a carer has a degree in English and isn't paying back his student loan, because he is on such low pay, but as he dresses and feeds his patient, he chats to them about Shakespeare or post modern literature, is his degree really wasted? And is he really defrauding the tax payer?
Or is he providing a service which is worth far more than any lawyer ?

I disagree, Elegran. An individual should not be paid for from the public purse to take a degree which is purely for their personal satisfaction and will not lead to employment which will, per se and through taxation, benefit society.

In considering the benefit of society as a whole, we should not forget that each individual is a part of that society, and entitled to benefit.

Leave the country! Surely not. Probably just their way of expressing their views at the moment. After all in a democracy we have to accept that not all elections will end in victory for those we support.

GrannyGravy13

Knowledge is power.

How it is gained at what it is used for is often questionable.

Education is not just the acquisition of a narrow band of knowledge that will be relevant to a specific occupation. The word is derived from the Latin educere E = out, and ducere = to lead, Education in its widest sense should be drawing out those abilities and qualities that someone is capable of.

The use of any knowledge is dependent on the character and personality of the person who has that knowledge. Someone with a lot of money is no more guaranteed to have the character and personality to make good use of their knowledge and be an asset to society than someone who has less.

Germanshepherdsmum

Learning for the sake of learning is a luxury. It should not be funded by the taxpayer. I have, in retirement, finally enjoyed that luxury at my own expense. The taxpayer should not be expected to fund learning which does not benefit society as a whole.

But, who would make this judgement GSM ? I kind of agree that one degree and a masters followed by a doctorate is quite enough, however as the whole thing is now done via loans not grants, then why not?

Also, the entire student loan for maintenance is so flawed, my daughter attended Brighton Uni, she didn’t get halls, even in the first year, the cost of renting was pretty high, yet based on our pretty modest joint income (which only takes into account income, not outgoings), she was only awarded £3,000 per year for rent/living/books etc. yes, she could have worked, but at the time she had such pronounced anxiety, (which turned out to be autism after huge assessments), she didn’t feel able to work, attend lectures and travel to teaching practice in various schools, so we and her grandmother topped her up.

foxie48

But who decides what learning "benefits" society? It isn't the knowledge that one gains, it is the skills that are developed that are really transferable and those skills can be developed following a huge range of different subjects that are not strictly vocational.

That’s the conundrum.

Just as wealthy people take risks, risk their money and homes, employ and train people all the while paying the government multiple taxes, others spend their time learning…

But who decides what learning "benefits" society? It isn't the knowledge that one gains, it is the skills that are developed that are really transferable and those skills can be developed following a huge range of different subjects that are not strictly vocational.

Knowledge is power.

How it is gained at what it is used for is often questionable.

We must agree to differ, Germanshepherdsmum I don't believe that knowledge (which consists of education plus experience and contemplation) is a luxury. It is an essential. Without it, a person is an atomaton who lives only to work and to collect money. We are all blessed with minds. curiosity, and the capacity for insight, which should all be exercised as often as we exercise our bodies. Exposure to as much education as we can absorb is a part of that, and it ought to be available to all.

Local authorities used to run many inexpensive courses in all kindsof subjects, from basic 3Rs for those who adults, through vocational classes to skills for leisure time. These have dwindled in many places, along with library closures, due to the LAs funds being reduced.

Two things that help lift people out of poverty and ignorance are subsidised education and healthcare. Knowledge is meant to be shared, and a nation which grudges it to its citizens is poorer for the lack of it.