University Tutition fees

[Poderosa III]

Your opinions please...

[The idealist]

Personally I think it is crap. Setting fees from being £3000 for three years to £9000 for three years is the dubest idea ever. Not only do tons of students miss out on an education because they cannot afford the fees, but the people who can afford it are often the sons of capitalistic benefactors. Not only will the working class be kept out, but the capitalists get stronger.
Save up comrades. Go to University. Because we must not let that happen.

[pedro san pedro]

in australia a pecentage of uni places go to students that can pay their (huge) fees upfront. making it a lot harder for people from poor backgrounds to make it to uni.
i believe this can happen to up to 50% of accepted enrolments.

obviously this is going to increase the class gap.

still, i guess if i work my arse of in a shitty shitty job for 45 years, one day a great great grandchild might get to study. ;)

[RedAnarchist]

Education must be universal. And it must be free.

Education is important. The capitalists must not be able to tax this right, as it is not a privilege, but something we must all have and we must all be able to afford it.

[The idealist]

I can see we agree. The good about this is that an increased class gap could help the cause by making more people aware of socialist ideals, but this still does not make what is happening any less terrible.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Indeed the new fees are ridiculous.

After Blair's emphatic "Education, education, education" speech, such a stupid reform should never have even been thought of. Also, after claiming he wanted 50% of pupils from schools to go onto University, increasing fees by such an amount is ludicrous.

One thing you must understand though, and it is something people always forget when debating this topic, is that they will not be paid like we pay them now. The fees will have to be paid back in the same way that the student loans get paid back; upon graudating and earning over a certain amount (I think it's either £14,000 or £15,000 p/a)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the fees, however the payment method is a vital part of the deal which mustn't be forgotten. Of course, most people who go to University would like to graduate and earn over that amount, so they are more than likely to be paid off. Although I do think it will increase the class gap, I don't think it will as much as people say. It will be the fear of having to eventually pay such a sum back which will put people off, not their financial situation at the time.

As it happens, I don't think it will make much difference. But I don't think much difference needs to be made. The current fees are ludicrous enough. As a History and Politics student in Cardiff, I have to pay £1,250 per academic year as the yeras go by. That alone has the power to deter the working class from attemtping university.

Peversely, there may be one good thing about the fees therefore. As it is unlikely to deter the working classes any more than the current fees do, it will be the middle classes and the wealthy elites who are actually affected more than the working class as they will have to shell out more.

But anyway, the fee's should be smashed. Education should be free as an essential component of the development of every child into an educated member of society. After all, "A child uneducated is a child lost", and it is therefore the governments ludicrous spending on ridiculous things which is losing many children.

[monkeydust]

If anyone here is going to suffer from top up fees, then you need not worry too much. They're not as bad as they initially sound, economically speaking. In fact you may find that you will not pay back the whole loan at all. (as it is cancelled after a number of years). The psychological implications of tuition fees are, however, a different matter.


Not only do tons of students miss out on an education because they cannot afford the fees

In answer to this, the Labour government would proclaim:

"It's not a case of whether or not you can afford it now, you pay the money back after you start earning money. Why shouldn't those who benefit from education pay for it?"


This argument seems valid; for me, however, it is specious.

The Labour governement implemented the policy on the premise that:

"Those who gain a university education will earn more "

This seems a tenable view to take. It is, however, presupposing that people go to university, with the prime intention of earning money.

It ignores the fact that many, myself included, seek an education for personal development and enrichment.

Further, it reflects the path that education is taking right now. Education is seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. People seek an education merely to earn more money, and to get a 'good' job.

As a consequence, I personally feel that many people are willing to do "as little as possible" in order to gain sufficient qualifications to succeed. Consequently corners may be cut, and we may find that the next generation has a very limited concern for intellectual matters, that people have no desire to pursue knowledge, seeing it as a "necessary evil" on the path to high paid employment.

[James]

primary and pre-school education needs far more investment first. Personally, i don't mind that much paying to go to uni.

[Kez]

but dont you realise that what "you not minding" to pay £1250 a year, plus expenses, is something the working class cannot (as a whole) do?

do you not mind about that?

[DaCuBaN]

It ignores the fact that many, myself included, seek an education for personal development and enrichment

Well you've just got to live on £13,500 a year then ;)

Seriously though: I feel really sorry for those down south, these tuition fees aren't good news at all - education costs enough in our society as it is without them actually putting a price on it like this, even if it is paid back in this fashion.


As a consequence, I personally feel that many people are willing to do "as little as possible" in order to gain sufficient qualifications to succeed. Consequently corners may be cut, and we may find that the next generation has a very limited concern for intellectual matters, that people have no desire to pursue knowledge, seeing it as a "necessary evil" on the path to high paid employment

All the time this devalues the qualifications themselves, and the whole thing ends up in a vicious circle.

All i can say is don't pay: come north :D

[Invader Zim]

I think that all services should be paid for by public money. This move is a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

[James]

well kez, they don't have to pay upfront - they only pay them back if/when they are earning that set amount. And its not all at once.

My point however Kez, was that any further funds put into education should go to primary and pre-school education. They are DRASTICALLY behind.

Especially if this ridiculous 50% rate is pursued... of course its going to cost more money all around. Alot of these people don't need to go to uni: colleges, schemes, apprentice blah blah blah
I know that i'm now going to get jumped on for being "anit working class", or something just as origional (and hurtful :P), but guess what; i also think they should bring back gramma schools!

I think the 50s education system had its merits...

[Kez]

im gonna ignore the grammar school point for its stupidity value.

as for funding, again, your using your capitalist mindset.
Why dont we cut military spending and put it into the education instead of comprimising universities for primary schools?
Why dont we cut working benefit and give everyone a job they can be pround of, and from this they can increase productivity and generate extra tax for education?
Why are so many executives getting paid millions for their work in the NHS when there are not enough classrooms in schools?

No to propping up capitalism in all its forms!

[monkeydust]

Dacuban


All the time this devalues the qualifications themselves, and the whole thing ends up in a vicious circle.

All I can say is. Go north.


I totally agree on the first point.

On the second point: I think most Northerners would be disgusted by my accent, besides, the South is sunny. However, I'm probably going to move North soon, maybe in the next year or two.


Enigma

I think that all services should be paid for by public money. This move is a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion


I sympathise with your view to an extent.

Though it's "easier said than done"

Realistically Labour would have to

a) Institute a heavy system of progressive taxation. (which is unfeasible right now)
b) Cut spending in other areas. (which again, isn't particularly viable right now)

The only other option is to cut the numer of people going to University. I can see the merits of this, but who's going to be told "sorry you can't go".

It's a tough issue.

James


My point however Kez, was that any further funds put into education should go to primary and pre-school education. They are DRASTICALLY behind.

I agree somewhat.

I was very lucky with my Primary school education. THe school I went to was, at least back then, one of the 'top ten' in the country. It's only recently that I realise the need for funding to go into primary school education as a whole.

However, it must be said that there's certainly a case for restructuring spending methods in education, as opposed to 'pouring money in'.


Especially if this ridiculous 50% rate is pursued.

An elitist might argue along these lines:

-The executive wishes to get 50% of people into university education.
-Previously 50% of people simply were not capable of getting a degree.
-Hence Degrees get easier over time.
-Moreover, a degree is devalued, when a large number of people have the qualification.
-A greater number of people stay in education for longer, for no realistic benefit.

There may be some truth in such a view.


i also think they should bring back gramma schools

Down South they still exst.


I think the 50s education system had its merits...

Conservative...... :P

[DaCuBaN]

but guess what; i also think they should bring back gramma schools!

:lol: I respect that, but if EVER you try to do that (if I have kids) I'm coming after you. OK? :lol:

I agree the funds from this should have been allocated to the primary education system, but in all honesty it needs a total overhaul anyway. Let's not turn this into a thread on that though - if anything it deserves it's own thread, which I can't be bothered with. But if you start it they will come...


Why are so many executives getting paid millions for their work in the NHS when there are not enough classrooms in schools?

I've never understood why a person can think they are more 'valuable' than another so I can't agree more with you here.


Why dont we cut working benefit and give everyone a job they can be pround of, and from this they can increase productivity and generate extra tax for education?

You understand there is approx. 5% of the UK population regarded as unemployable? I don't know for what reasons, but in principle I agree. I'm not sure how well it would work though - are you basically suggesting that under our current system anyone who is out of work does paid community service?

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:24 PM
You understand there is approx. 5% of the UK population regarded as unemployable? I don't know for what reasons, but in principle I agree. I'm not sure how well it would work though - are you basically suggesting that under our current system anyone who is out of work does paid community service?
Nope, im suggesting we give them a proper job so they can earn themselves

[James]

im gonna ignore the grammar school point for its stupidity value.

Why?
Schools were better then.
I think they should be able to drop out early too - i think the thugs (i.e. the ones in bottom set who REALLY don't want to be there) should be given apprentice schemes

Are you also one of those wierd people who says putting people into sets is racist or something. Oh no, i imagine you say it represents the class war in our society or something.
Am i close?


as for funding, again, your using your capitalist mindset.
Why dont we cut military spending and put it into the education instead of comprimising universities for primary schools?

Because it is already underfunded.
Sorry, but the military is important.
Are you a pacifist now?

[monkeydust]

To be fair, Grammar schools are at least, in a sense meritocratic. You don't buy your way into a Grammar school education.

Private schools on the other hand, should, as far as I'm concerned be abolished.




i think the thugs (i.e. the ones in bottom set who REALLY don't want to be there) should be given apprentice schemes

This is in the works.

Expect it to be legislation in a couple of years.

Apparently we have a lack of plumbers and practical workers.

Current proposals will allow pupils to take about 3 days a week out, for apprenticeship schemes.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:31 PM

im gonna ignore the grammar school point for its stupidity value.

Why?
Schools were better then.
I think they should be able to drop out early too - i think the thugs (i.e. the ones in bottom set who REALLY don't want to be there) should be given apprentice schemes

Are you also one of those wierd people who says putting people into sets is racist or something. Oh no, i imagine you say it represents the class war in our society or something.
Am i close?


as for funding, again, your using your capitalist mindset.
Why dont we cut military spending and put it into the education instead of comprimising universities for primary schools?

Because it is already underfunded.
Sorry, but the military is important.
Are you a pacifist now?
Schools were not better then, grammar schools were, who were populated by the ruling class, the elite.

As for thugs...thats pretty simple thinking, seems someone was bullied in their earlier years.

Why do people turn to becoming thugs? what is the root of this problem, no point in caging them up when the problem still is there.

fuck you on about with the class war?

Ah, the military is underfunded, so you support greater fuunding for the British Military, who only works for the interests of the British Ruling class, haha, what a true socialist.

As for a pacifist, no. I simply oppose giving greater power to an imperialist army, something you dont.

[DaCuBaN]

Guys, lets wipe the rabid foam from our lips and be reasonable please


Schools were not better then, grammar schools were, who were populated by the ruling class, the elite.



To be fair, Grammar schools are at least, in a sense meritocratic. You don't buy your way into a Grammar school education

I'm tempted to believe the latter: not being alive at the time I can only really guess


As for thugs...thats pretty simple thinking, seems someone was bullied in their earlier years.

Why do people turn to becoming thugs? what is the root of this problem, no point in caging them up when the problem still is there


This is in the works.

Expect it to be legislation in a couple of years.

Apparently we have a lack of plumbers and practical workers.


The two cannot (again) be together - I can only surmise that you posted at about the same time. Kez noone is suggesting caging anyone - Giving someone the choice to opt out of academic education isn't unreasonable - I think perhaps you're blinding yourself with your hatred for James (again)


As for a pacifist, no. I simply oppose giving greater power to an imperialist army, something you dont.

He never suggested giving them more money. Digest:


My point however Kez, was that any further funds put into education should go to primary and pre-school education. They are DRASTICALLY behind

[James]

Schools were not better then, grammar schools were, who were populated by the ruling class, the elite.

My mother's family are farm labourers. My mother went to gramma; but my aunt didn't.
Was my mother part of the rulling class kamo? No; she was working class. Worked the land.


As for thugs...thats pretty simple thinking, seems someone was bullied in their earlier years.

Too right. Like most people.
It was a name i'm sure alot on here can relate to - these are the people who make it harder for the rest of the class to move on. Dead weights?
Its not even as if they are just thick - they are thick and can't be arsed


Why do people turn to becoming thugs? what is the root of this problem, no point in caging them up when the problem still is there.

lol; i can't do maths.
In maths i'd just mess about

Same with RE. In fact RE i managed to get into bottom of the bottom sets. If you've been there kamo, you know its not worth it.


fuck you on about with the class war?
lol, you and your buzz words!
Like you confused meritism, with class conflict. Or something.


Ah, the military is underfunded, so you support greater fuunding for the British Military, who only works for the interests of the British Ruling class, haha, what a true socialist.

No; they have shite equipment. The SA-80 falls apart. it FALLS apart kamo!
We have helicopters that can't fly! Boots that melt!

Do you throw fire extinghusiers out? Do you argue that they are only needed by arsons?

Anyway; i'm for having a decent competitve military

I think you are too, judging by your next comment;


As for a pacifist, no. I simply oppose giving greater power to an imperialist army, something you dont.

Did i say they should have independent powers? Cut the lines of accountablity?
You say you arn't a pacifist, but then go ahead and say we should cut our military down?

They have little funds as it stands. Taking funds from them so someone can go to uni to study "media studies" for free doesn't make much sense to me.

[monkeydust]

I'm tempted to believe the latter: not being alive at the time I can only really guess

Not being alive at the time?!?

What's happening up North?!?

Down south Grammar schools are still in existence.

Entry is achieved by passing an exam, which, supposedly seperates the top 25% of 11 year olds from the rest.

They're no better funded than ordinary schools, the idea was (originally) to segregate 'good' students so that they are not 'held back' by weaker ones.

They have nothing to do with your class. Poor and rich are welcome equally.

However, it must be said that the exam taken by 11 year olds is far from an idela method to sort pupils according to ability. It neglects the fact that some students are 'late bloomers', and may not be 'up to speed' by the age 11. This isn't to say that such students are necessarily weaker.

Moreover, many simply call such institutions elitist by definition.

It's your choice which view to support I suppose.


EDIT: While we're talking about Grammar schools:

-I think there's at least 4 Grammar schools in my town, they're far from abolished down here.

-Also, they all tend to be gender exclusive (i.e. all single sex schools.)

[DaCuBaN]

I live up in Aberdeen, and the 'Grammar School' here is one by name alone - it's pupils get in by being in the locality

The scottish and english systems vary I believe

[Poderosa III]

Current proposals will allow pupils to take about 3 days a week out, for apprenticeship schemes.

This is already in existance in the rougher areas of england, kids can take 3 days out a week to go and do a "vocational" course (similar to aprenteships etc), if they want to.

I personally think this is a great idea, kids who don't wanna learn aren't going to really... but they might want to have a go at welding.

On a side note this new idea for a more french like "broader" curriculum on A levels sickens me, i would not have gone into college if i had to do maths again, it doesn't take into account people who are more specialised, like me... I'm good at what i'm good at, and what i'm good at is NOT maths...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Education should of course be free at all levels from pre-school to University, not that education should be a preserve of the wealthy, although it looks as tho it's going to be that way.

[Poderosa III]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:28 AM
Education should of course be free at all levels from pre-school to University, not that education should be a preserve of the wealthy, although it looks as tho it's going to be that way.
Agreed

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:38 PM
Schools were not better then, grammar schools were, who were populated by the ruling class, the elite.

As for thugs...thats pretty simple thinking, seems someone was bullied in their earlier years.

Why do people turn to becoming thugs? what is the root of this problem, no point in caging them up when the problem still is there.

fuck you on about with the class war?

Ah, the military is underfunded, so you support greater fuunding for the British Military, who only works for the interests of the British Ruling class, haha, what a true socialist.

As for a pacifist, no. I simply oppose giving greater power to an imperialist army, something you dont.
grammar schools were, who were populated by the ruling class, the elite.

Bullshit, grammar schools were state run insititutions where practically anyone could enter if they had the grades. My cousin's went to Grammar school and their parents were school teachers, teachers get pittiful wages, so you argument that grammar schools are in some way populated by the ruling class is shit.

[Funky Monk]

My local grammar charges something like 3 grand a year.


And to be fair most of the people who go are t***s.

[Kez]

"Bullshit, grammar schools were state run insititutions where practically anyone could enter if they had the grades. My cousin's went to Grammar school and their parents were school teachers, teachers get pittiful wages, so you argument that grammar schools are in some way populated by the ruling class is shit. "

Are the working class not at a disadvantage for attaining top grades?

[DaCuBaN]

Are the working class not at a disadvantage for attaining top grades?

Why would they be? the schools provide you with (almost) everything you need to learn - the only thing you need to worry about is ammo for your pen ;)

In all honesty I think I'm missing your point though... could you please clarify?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:05 PM
Are the working class not at a disadvantage for attaining top grades?
I dont see how, unless you are suggesting that the children of working class people are in some way less intelegant, than their Middle/upper class counter parts.

Not to mention that many middle class children attend the same primary education schools, as working class children.

The disadvantage is the attitude which people enter education with, not basic ability. This suggests that this problem is based around basic social disadvantage rather than anything as specific as grammar schools.

My local grammar charges something like 3 grand a year.

Well its not a state grammar school then, because state grammar schools, like comprehensives are funded by the state, not from fee's from students.

[Kez]

Well,

who has better living amneties?
who has better traditions/aspirations?
who has better family life? (ie whose parents work more?)
whos family have less financial concerns to worry about?
Since when did schools pay for trips?
Since when did schools pay for home tutoring?
Since when did schools pay for extra tutoring?

[James]

i'm refering to the system that was abolished in the early 70s (or so my mother seems to remember): there were grammar schools for those who did well in the 11plus exam, and then "secondary modern" schools for the rest. She noticed obvious changes, and did not approve at all.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:12 PM
Well,

who has better living amneties?
who has better traditions/aspirations?
who has better family life? (ie whose parents work more?)
whos family have less financial concerns to worry about?
Since when did schools pay for trips?
Since when did schools pay for home tutoring?
Since when did schools pay for extra tutoring?
who has better living amneties?
who has better traditions/aspirations?
who has better family life? (ie whose parents work more?)
whos family have less financial concerns to worry about?

Did you read what I posted, or are you just deliberatly being stupid? Well I will post it again for your benefit: -

" This suggests that this problem is based around basic social disadvantage rather than anything as specific as grammar schools."

Since when did schools pay for trips?

And what has that got to do with a child attending a grammar school?

Since when did schools pay for home tutoring?
Since when did schools pay for extra tutoring?

Sinse when did the majority of the people who attend grammar schools have this, or need to? Or are you suggesting that the reality of the situation is that the majority of people who attend grammar school are stupid and in need of extra tuition?

My god your being foolish.

Cease digging an even deaper hole for your self.

[DaCuBaN]

Chill enigma: he was just answering my question :rolleyes:

You are correct in my eyes, but I think this is a case of concurrent posting

[Kez]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 11 2004, 10:18 PM--> (Enigma @ May 11 2004, 10:18 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 10:12 PM
Well,

who has better living amneties?
who has better traditions/aspirations?
who has better family life? (ie whose parents work more?)
whos family have less financial concerns to worry about?
Since when did schools pay for trips?
Since when did schools pay for home tutoring?
Since when did schools pay for extra tutoring?
who has better living amneties?
who has better traditions/aspirations?
who has better family life? (ie whose parents work more?)
whos family have less financial concerns to worry about?

Did you read what I posted, or are you just deliberatly being stupid? Well I will post it again for your benefit: -

" This suggests that this problem is based around basic social disadvantage rather than anything as specific as grammar schools."

Since when did schools pay for trips?

And what has that got to do with a child attending a grammar school?

Since when did schools pay for home tutoring?
Since when did schools pay for extra tutoring?

Sinse when did the majority of the people who attend grammar schools have this, or need to? Or are you suggesting that the reality of the situation is that the majority of people who attend grammar school are stupid and in need of extra tuition?

My god your being foolish.

Cease digging an even deaper hole for your self. [/b]
the conditions i set give disadvantages against working class, hence working class have more barriers to climb over to get into grammar schools

[DaCuBaN]

the conditions i set give disadvantages against working class, hence working class have more barriers to climb over to get into grammar schools


I disagree... this argument applies purely to education within a monetary society - not to the grammar schools which are in their way 'eliteist' but on intellectual, not class terms

The question should really be is this much better?

[Kez]

hmm, are we not in a moneterist system? or did i miss the world wide communsit revolution last night???

[DaCuBaN]

My argument is that you are aportioning blame to the wrong entities - it is not the idea of a school for the gifted that creates the problem, but the mechanism by which this education is attainable

In short, it's the bleedin' cappies again: not the grammar schools - they do not favour by class, simply by intellect.

[Funky Monk]

What's this shit about how poor family life (parents working) can affect education?

My dad used to work a lot of weekends at his office and i still got decent grades.

[Kez]

Funky, if u worked the same, but with a privelidged background, chances are u wud get better grades, correct?

[Funky Monk]

I agree with that, just questioning some of the connotations of the less privelidged backgrounds and their affects.

Another issue to be raised with this is drive for education. Its a sad fact but Working Class kids have little expected of them, they arent experience higher education by their teachers or more seriously by their parents. Without this drive they often fail to gain the benefits of an education.

[James]

as i said - my mother was raised by farm labourer family.
She got the grades (unlike her sister. Guess she was more class conscious kamo?)

[Kez]

so what? there are unique cases, anecdotal evidence, so what?

[James]

lmao!
Here we go again with the classic kamo argument
i.e. anything that goes against his theory is in fact the "minority"; so can be ignored

[DaCuBaN]

Nah... if he takes a dislking to you he feels compelled to disagree tis all :rolleyes:

Bear in mind we have state schools and private schools in this country - grammar schools falling into the former. The rich do get a benefit, but the grammar schools are not at the root of this.

So anyway, isn't this a university thread?

Can anyone even remember what we were talking about?

[James]

yeah - there is always a shortage of money. Primary and preschool kids need it more.

[Kez]

but remember, we cant sort it out by cutting military spending and divert it to public interests can we now!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:13 PM
but remember, we cant sort it out by cutting military spending and divert it to public interests can we now!
I dont know, I think that cutting the military budget would do little in the reality of the situation.

The answer is not half assed measures like that, but to tax those who can afford to pay.

Any real leftist would know and accept this. Your petty arguments only go to reinforce capitalist classes by accepting half baked concessions.

[Kez]

nope, half assed is retaining capitalism. I want to end it

The call to cut military spending is only to push forward workers gains under capitalism, however, to make these gains permanent we must have socialism.

What is being shown here is the contradictions of capitalism, ie how education and health need more money yet are told there isnt enough money, yet the government has enough money to fund illegal wars.

Again, just to clarify, thus we must overthrow the system which creates these contradictions, not simply have a capitalism with human face (as though there could ever be such a thing)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I agree with Enigma.

For too long now people have said "well if we just cut the war spending...."

That is the explanation given by one who cannot be bothered to figure out a real solution to problems. One who is like those thick politicos who prefer to be "anti-everything" than "pro-anything-at-all".

Indeed, taxing those who can afford it is a solution. But there are very deep-ridden social causes of the problems in education; not just financial.

The Sociology of education is a far more important thing to look into rather than the economics of it. Government policy can't really bring about a definate change in parents' attitudes towards their childrens education for example. This indestructable thing, "cultural capital", can be undone by the people only. Yes, government policy can aid it, but the people need will power. And again, I agree that over time, maybe government policy has created such apathetic views, but that is history.

[Kez]

so the solution is simply to tax more under capitalism?

[Poderosa III]

I think it would be a better idea to increase corprate tax and increase the tax of the rich, there are, however disadvantages to this:

I dont know if any of you remember (or were old enogh to care, i wasnt) but in the 1980s a labour government (old labour not the 2 faced new labour) increased taxes to the rich by a hell of a lot, then most of the rich people packed up and left the country.

So, i reckon we should raise the minimum wage up to the european standard, slowly (as to not kill off small and medium buisinesses), to £7.50 ish (i think it's £7.35 or something), while it would create dificulties for buisinesses, and probably a short term large scale job loss period (which would hopefully be cushioned by the long term increase), we would eventually gain enough revinue to be taxed more, thus a increase in public services, hence why the change is implemented over a longer period, to minimise the risks.

Once this had been implemented, we could then increase corprate tax as at the moment they're getting away with paying pitance (through exploiting others who were born in a less wealth country, so thus killing several birds with one stone) and then we could increase the tax of the rich. (for starters variable counil taxes, road tax being payed through fuel(thats just one i feel should be in place)
and other more flexible taxes.

Just an idea.

[Poderosa III]

Sorry this was a doubled up post cause me internet connection was playing up, so i refreshed it. oops =p

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 08:52 AM
so the solution is simply to tax more under capitalism?
If you tax to the extent that the rich cease to be rich, and suppliment the wages of the poor, you cease to have a capitalism based soceity.

[Invader Zim]

Double Post

[Kez]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 13 2004, 04:28 PM--> (Enigma @ May 13 2004, 04:28 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 08:52 AM
so the solution is simply to tax more under capitalism?
If you tax to the extent that the rich cease to be rich, and suppliment the wages of the poor, you cease to have a capitalism based soceity. [/b]
jesus christ, what the fuck???

no you dont, u simply have greater welfare, the workers are still exploited, and do not get paid the labour they put in.

The capitalists still own the means of production.

dear me...

[James]

people don't like being taxed lots.
Those who are rich enough will move away - and those who arn't (but are still classed as being "rich"), will stay - and there will be a nasty powerful reaction.

[monkeydust]

I dont know if any of you remember (or were old enogh to care, i wasnt) but in the 1980s a labour government (old labour not the 2 faced new labour) increased taxes to the rich by a hell of a lot, then most of the rich people packed up and left the country.

No I don't remember this at all.

Thatcher was in power throughout the 80's, Labour did not hold office, they never taxed the rich at all in that decade.

Your probably thinking of the 1970's.



So, i reckon we should raise the minimum wage up to the european standard, slowly (as to not kill off small and medium buisinesses), to £7.50 ish (i think it's £7.35 or something), while it would create dificulties for buisinesses, and probably a short term large scale job loss period (which would hopefully be cushioned by the long term increase), we would eventually gain enough revinue to be taxed more, thus a increase in public services, hence why the change is implemented over a longer period, to minimise the risks.


Perhaps, but remember an increase in the minimum wage does not solve all our problems.

If the minimum wage is too high, employers simly employ fewer workers. Consequently unemployment can rise, which is far worse than having meager wages.

[monkeydust]

EDIT:Sorry, the above post managed to get itself posted twice.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Kez+May 13 2004, 04:30 PM--> (Kez @ May 13 2004, 04:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:28 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 08:52 AM
so the solution is simply to tax more under capitalism?
If you tax to the extent that the rich cease to be rich, and suppliment the wages of the poor, you cease to have a capitalism based soceity.
jesus christ, what the fuck???

no you dont, u simply have greater welfare, the workers are still exploited, and do not get paid the labour they put in.

The capitalists still own the means of production.

dear me... [/b]
jesus christ

I doubt it.

what the fuck???

What a coincidence, I say that every time I see you post bollocks, and thats about 100% of the time.

no you dont, u simply have greater welfare, the workers are still exploited, and do not get paid the labour they put in.

Your an idiot, sorry but you are, can you even read?

If every one recieves the exact same income how are the workers being oppressed, when they are recieving the complete fruits of their labour? And how are they not getting paid for the labour they have done, if they are getting the same as everyone else? If they recieve anymore, that is at the expense of other workers, which IS capitalism.

The capitalists still own the means of production.

Actualoly no, you clearly do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism, is the attempt to appropriate capital, hense "capitalism", if every one recieves the exact same capital, then they are not making any more profit that anyone else, so they are not making excessive capital, so they cease to be capitalists.

Would you like me to teach you the alphabet maybe? Or perhaps long multiplication? Or maybe you could just go and read a book instead of wasting my time with your god damn ignorant shit!

dear me...

Yes Exactly, dear fucking you!

[Kez]

everyone has the same money...hmmm yes thats good, so a doctor and a binman get the same money, YOU FUCKING GENIUS

and why should the capitalist (who owns the means of production) get any money if he/she is not working?

As for wasting your time, try reading what Capitalism really means, and who controls what.

Dont patronise me with your bullshit comments, and if i was wasting ur time, u wudnt have replied would you, muppet

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Both of your arguments are becoming increasingly worthless because of the slanging match, so try to put aside whatever personal differences you have...cocks!

Enigma is right. If everyone is earning for the fruits of their labour then capital gain ceases to exist for the "capitalists", thus ceasing to be capitalistic.

Kez, as for your "why should the capitalist get money" remark. Again, it will cease to be capitalistic. If you are talking about one man who runs a certain company, then his running of the company certainly amounts to his "work done". State owned or not, companies still need aministrators to run the ship.

Anyway, I think my contribution to this argument is worthless as I'm basically arguing the same as Enigma.

[Poderosa III]

Your probably thinking of the 1970's.
Yeah, 1970s then, liek i said i wasn't around, so im not sure of the dates


If the minimum wage is too high, employers simly employ fewer workers. Consequently unemployment can rise, which is far worse than having meager wages.

I think if it could be done slowly enough (but fast enough to actually get through at a decent speed), if you could get the right gradient then it would be ok, but i reckon eventually, we'de come out for it for the better.

The downside to thisw is, who would decide the gradient? probably rich people on £80k a year, who would have no idea of what the rest of the nation (in particularly the poorer aspects) are like, or how they get by without the 40 year old vin le blanc shipped from france =p

Like i said, just an idea...

[Kez]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 14 2004, 12:00 AM
Kez, as for your "why should the capitalist get money" remark. Again, it will cease to be capitalistic. If you are talking about one man who runs a certain company, then his running of the company certainly amounts to his "work done". State owned or not, companies still need aministrators to run the ship.

theres a difference between owns and runs.

The fact is, the worker at the bottom does much more work, than those at the top, so equal pay wud be unjust.

[RedAnarchist]

More work should be rewarded with more pay, so the workers at the bottom should be paid much more then the ones at the top.

[Kez]

exactly.

Apparently Enigma has been listening to the bourgeoise apologists too much when they say "everyone gets paid the same".

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

The argument is veering into a definition of "work" now.

Admittedly, those who are, as you put it "at the bottom" do more grafting work, but those admiistrating and running the companies also do work, just different types of work which is equally important.

I think you should reassess your attitudes; to be radical, you also have to be realistic. Everyone who wears a suit isn't a capitalist fatcat.

[James]

The fact is, the worker at the bottom does much more work, than those at the top, so equal pay wud be unjust.



my boss does hell of a alot more than i

[Kez]

James i dont think you understand.

Theres a difference between Petit bourgeoise and Capitalist.

As far as i know, u work in a bar or so, therefore your boss is a member of the petit bourgeoise, not a capitalist, who is always getting fucked over by bigger businesses.

Your remark (due to your ignorance) is irrelevant.

[James]

well i think the over all owner oes more work than the pot washers. Probably a harder job too.

But thats messing with your majority dogma - so i must be ignored.

[Kez]

"well i think the over all owner oes more work than the pot washers. Probably a harder job too."

Your boss, who is petit bourgeoise, which is not something were talking about.

"But thats messing with your majority dogma - so i must be ignored."
Nope, your just wrong, that why you should be ignored,unless you can get enough people to support the idea that the CEO of Shell does more work than the oil worker on a rig in Baku...

[James]

no, like most pubs mine is owned by a company - a rather large company. Thus why i said over-all owner

[Kez]

idiot

[James]

Well done
suprisingly mature kamo; we must be growing up or something.

[Kez]

"no, like most pubs mine is owned by a company - a rather large company. Thus why i said over-all owner"

So the Chief Executive of the company does more work than the barman who has to inhale all that smoke for just about enough money to stay alive, while the fatcat at the top makes a few speeches a year to keep the shareholders happy, sign some contracts which enable him to leave the company with a couple of million if he fails his job, and count his money.

You still think he does more work? Try adding to the fact that the worker also has a family to look after in most cases with the shit working conditions.

[The idealist]

Please guys can you go through your messages after you have written them and erase the insults? It is hardly the stuff you expect from people who believe in the brotherhood of man and a world of co-operation.
:hammer:

Can you at least agree to disagree? If you want to convince others that your views are the right ones, you shouldn't insult them. That only gets their defences up and makes them even less likely to accept your views.

[Poderosa III]

Please guys can you go through your messages after you have written them and erase the insults? It is hardly the stuff you expect from people who believe in the brotherhood of man and a world of co-operation.


Can you at least agree to disagree? If you want to convince others that your views are the right ones, you shouldn't insult them. That only gets their defences up and makes them even less likely to accept your views.

Amen to that =D