Seems a bit disingenuous if they won't pay it back if they don't become high earners.

In other news, students from poorer backgrounds are going to university at a record rate - up 43% since 2009.

And yeah, the government could charge £500k for total tuition fees, but if you go and work as a nurse you'll pay exactly the same back as if the total fees were £50k.

Just an effective lifetime of debt in exchange for a lifetime of public service. Sounds fair.
People seem to be missing the point entirely, it's about deepening inequality. Look forward to the narrative shift when tories realise they can't win elections on this basis, cracks are appearing.

It's not a lifetime, it's written off after 30 years. It's been discussed in here already, but free university shifts the cost onto some who don't go to university - your argument doesn't work.

We're in really trouble if everyone starts making promises just to win elections.

But it's not debt like any other though, right? It doesn't count against your credit rating if you can't pay it back and it just rises with inflation.

I understand that inequality is a bad thing was bad consequences. but if, hypothetically (and I'm not suggesting this currently pertains), the worst off in society are better off than they would otherwise be, then inequality seems like much more of a political posture.

Not necessarily, inequality carries the potential for harm as those without contrast their fortunes against those with even if they are materially better off, this may be a cause of alienation which can detach a person from the society on which they live. I get there's a couple of qualifiers there there but we are talking hypothetically.

If they had just labelled it a graduate tax with a lifetime absolute cap, which is what it is, there wouldn't be this confusion about it being some sort of loan.

it funds the cost of going to university, and is not paid by the poorest, and only paid in full by high earners, or (effectively before being incurred) by their rich parents.

It is progressive. The only argument against it is that this method lets rich non-graduates non-parents-of-graduates avoid contributing to our uni population. Which may be a good point, but focus on that.

I prefer rich persons taxes rather than graduate taxes. I also think I should pay more tax and I'm certainly not rich.

I guess what's amazing about tuition fees is it's easily Labour's worst policy, yet it probably won them the most votes.

It's amazing what people will do with £50k on offer - the Tories should just have a policy where they randomly give 250,000 people £50k every year.

Would still be more a progressive policy than scraping tuition fees.

This is potentially true, but there is a difference between perceived harm and actual harm, and part of being a responsible government is sometimes being unpopular the unpopular parent, "you may not like this medicine but it's best for you". I spend all day reading about the idea of parts of society becoming alienated and it's often attributed to particular social problems but the empirical evidence to support it is quite thin.

Or are particular social problems attributed to alienation? I guess how it's defined matters but anti-social behaviour suggests some detachment from the social norms of that community.

The argument I heard was made by David McWilliams in a documentary I disagreed with quite strongly but he cited pyschology research that suggests that the harm caused by the contrast between rich and poor manifests in materially significant ways, it's not just a question of perception. I'm also okay with poor people telling richer people in government to get ****ed when governments tell them that something that will hurt them will make them better while rich people feel no pain.

Yes indeed, I'm trying to be careful not to say that I agree with Tory austerity in the paternalistic Cameron-esq way above. In fact, the people telling politicians to **** off if they don't feel they're getting a good deal (regardless of whether they are) is probably quite an important check and balance.

I don't doubt that seeing inequality on a day-to-day basis has negative consequences, but weighing it up against a specific good (such as more progressive tuition fees) is difficult.

it's not written off after 30 years for a bunch of people it depends when you got your loan

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

On this particular subject the Scottish govt commissioned an independent report into poverty. The latest one was published 2 days ago and is titled The Life Chances of Young People in Scotland. Haven't read it yet but it may be an interesting read for some and I believe it covers inequality in education.

Pretty sure that for whom it doesn't expire in 30 years are paying the much smaller amount 3k or 1k p/a.

Here's an article that contains the figures.
As I've stated in this thread I'm against scrapping fees but totally for finding a fairer solution - including significant incremental reductions for graduates going into public service.

http://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-costs-of...on-fee-pledge/

I'm far more concerned with the way free schools,multi academy trusts and the like are getting preferential treatment in terms of capital spending, per pupil funding (60% more than state schools) and oversight (OFSTED has long been politicised).
The scrapping of the EMA (£10 - £30 a week means tested for families below £31k annual income) for 16-19 year olds was a cynical move driving many 16-19 year olds out of education while saving very little(£560m)

I have to admit I am less convinced of the role of education in addressing inequality than most but I am a fan of taxation being based on an ability to pay rather than the value of services received from the state. Hence my preference for progressive taxation and universally free access to 3rd level education.

I think primary and secondary education probably play the most important role in addressing inequality and if they were addressed satisfactorily then 3rd level education would also play an important role. But if the first two are broken, it seems that having free uni rewards those who benefit from the current system.

Well if you means test loan repayments which they do then you can replace those loan repayments with increased taxation and they benefit to the extent the cost of their education is shared with those that didn't go to uni but earn well which I'm perfectly alright with.

I don't think education does address inequality more it provides some with an opportunity to benefit from it. Those that benefit from inequality can pay more regardless of whether they went to uni or not.

I think I'm in the tranche that don't get it written off till 65 (which is the worst one), and I was allowed about £3k a year I think.

If we're getting onto schools my biggest bugbear is that publicly funded schools are allowed to select pupils on the basis of religion. Not an inequality point per se, but definitely something I'm strongly against.

I think that's probably wrong. The point of a well-rounded education system is to give support to everyone, not just those destined for red-bricks.

In practice, it may mean more money available in poorer areas to find students with elite potential that never would have had the chance. It may also mean more funding for regional colleges/apprenticeships for vocations. But this focus on getting everyone to be the next lawyer/doctor/academic is a problem if we frame it as the only way of being successful.

State provided education is being systematically undermined.
That is a given. My wife is a former senior manager of a sixth form college in one of the country's most deprived areas. She's also worked closely with OFSTED.
She's now an educational consultant and much of her work is with charities implementing educational initiatives in schools. The disparity between state and free schools/academies is frightening.
Senior managers of trust run colleges setting their own pay, personal shower rooms being built into offices, OFSTED conveniently skipping inspections that would find institutions failing. Underqualified and unsuitable staff elevated to positions of senior management. All par for the course if you're not under the state umbrella.

Something we actually agree on!
State funded faith schools may give priority to applicants from their faith but must admit other applicants if they don't fill all their places.
They tend to have a lower proportion of poorer pupils than other schools in the same area.

What part do you think is wrong?

My view is that education may provide some an avenue out of poverty/low paid jobs but it doesn't address systemic inequality. We as a society determine that we want certain jobs doing that don't pay well and the need for those jobs promotes inequality because the people doing them suffer from it.