That looks inconsistent with the fact the 50% tax rate barely raise any more tax.

The idea of social mobility and meritocracy are very important to democratic socialists.

If the concept of debt and affordability deters certain lower status cohorts from attending university and becoming the higher tax paying future rich, then their is a big case to be made for reducing/eliminating fees.

Though imo a much bigger emphasis should be put on affordability at point of contact in terms of grants etc.

I'm saying we could be. Either way, it's likely that there is a diminishing return at this point of the curve, and I'd be very surprised if the costings allowed for that - therefore less revenue than expected.

That's my other main gripe with this and stuff like the free school meals, I'd rather the money was spent on the poor rather than across the board. I know plenty of people perfectly capable of paying for their children to eat who would get free school meals under Corbyn

Labour's 2015 manifesto basically pledged to return Britain to 2010 income tax brackets. Government revenue from income tax increased when the top rate was increased to 50% in 2010 and decreased when the top rate was reduced to 45% in 2013.

For example.

UK government revenue from income tax fiscal year 2012: £200.1bn
UK government revenue from income tax fiscal year 2013: £196.6bn

UK nominal GDP grew by ~3.4% in the calendar year of 2013 btw.

I don't think you'd find many if any serious economists who'd claim that Labour's proposed income tax increases would reduce income tax revenue in the short term.

Care to educate me. I'd like an accurate figure so hopefully you'll be able to give me one.

I didn't claim that. I raised the issue as a reason why it wouldn't raise as much tax as they thought. The paper below explains how 50% didn't raise as much as they thought and the behavioral impact was higher than expected.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...e-tax-2042.pdf

There's no legal basis for the Barnett formula.

It will certainly be brought up in the application for the judicial review.
Would be appreciated and helpful if you were to explain what you disagree with when replying to a post.

In Scotland, abolition of tuition fees have been demonstrated to reduce social mobility.

There are lots of arguments for free school meals that transcend the mere cost though. There are a lot of families who don't provide their children with a nutritious meal at home, and therefore free school meals guarantee children get at least 1 decent meal a day.

In addition, it's pretty demeaning for poor children to have a free meals while their friend's families are wealthy enough to pay.

When you also add in arguments about the obesity epidemic, particularly among children, then forming habits based around healthy behaviour while children are young could well save money over the longer term.

Cite?

Cursory searching seems to show that entrance to university in Scotland by lower income cohorts is inhibited by loans needed to pay for living expenses rather than anything to do with fees for the course itself, which makes sense.

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...costly-promise

Cant find anything showing direct causal link between fees and mobility, it looks like it has to do with other aspects of scotish funding/culture.

http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Access-in-Scotland_May2016.pdfhtml

Cant find anything in there to support your argument?????

It is 104 pages tho, if its in there please quote.

So you read a 104-page document in 4 minutes?

No, but I did searches on relevant terms.

Big chuckles if you think anyone is going to read all of that document.

We did this before, if you know the article supports your argument, you must know where the relevant arguments are made.

If you cant quote those segments I am going to assume you have not read it either and are just citing based on hope.

Please quote.

lol

i used to have a fantasy in uni where if i ate the book then maybe the information would find its way to my brain

maybe print it out and try that

Looks pretty clear it was a cite and hope from reading the conclusion.

But..but...but..he has a Master's so it must be true.

i just about managed to trawl through the conclusions, jfc social scientists love to babble on

basically i think they reckon that all the middle class kids are now clustering in the good unis, AND appearing in greater numbers in the not so good unis. extra middle class uptake as a result of 0 fees + cap on number of students (study implies hootsland is obligated to have a cap, idk why) = poorer kids getting pushed out. unis are selecting the middle class ones cos they get better grades cos better schools

bolded says that post-92 unis ie newer, lower reputation ones are (surprisingly) also being more selective

pg 86 for more waffle

Excellent post. It only cost £600m a year - that's about half a DUP bribe.

Looking at what the DUP are saying they'll spend the funds on isn't it similar to what Labour propose but without the tax rise to pay for it?
#selectivemagicmoneytree

Health: A minimum of £250m, with £200m directed to health service transformation and £50m towards mental health provision. It will also receive £50m to "address immediate pressures"

Education: £50m to "address immediate pressures"

Infrastructure: £400m for projects including delivery the York Street Interchange, plus £150m to provide ultra-fast broadband across Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's capital budget is currently about £1bn per year.

Deprivation: £100m over five years targeted to deprived communities

Is there evidence that free school meals prevent obesity? BTW, obesity is IMO one of the bigger issues facing the UK (and much of the developed world). Labour proposed a sugary drinks tax which is a good policy but like the issue of obesity it didn't get much media traction. Reducing obesity would do more to help the British healthcare system* than throwing a few extra billion for nurses + improve productivity etc. Obesity is a bigger problem for the UK than Jihadism but gets <1% of the attention.

*(Counter argument - the NHS doesn't want people living longer...)

Free education is a cornerstone for probably every socialist theory/manifesto/doctrine/program ever stated. And it extends well beyond just socialism, it is critical for any progressive, investment driven economy.

Fees for degree level courses is an absurdity that has somehow taken over the common discourse. Your thinking is short sighted and cynical. 'The poor', same as everybody else, benefit from a well educated society of doctors, solicitors, dentists, teachers, engineers, these people don't work in isolation, they are part of the network that supports economic growth, public health, tax contributions, hence living standards etc etc. Society as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. All the fees system does is transfer the risk of higher education onto the shoulders of the individual. It doesn't create extra money into the system, only hinders growth by restricting take home pay, and saddles people with a lifetime of debt before they even get started.

Someone explain the £100m for broadband to me please.

For infrastructure like fibre optic cables and ??? that the Internet providers will profit from? Ffs I thought they paid for that **** themselves.