"a tax on jobs"

[eFestivals]

Phil isn't asking you, I am.

Good for you.

I'll be waiting on phil, to avoid typing things twice.

There's that defense mechanism again.

Nope, just me pointing out that you're everything you accuse other of.

[eFestivals]

Just explain the contradiction. Just give us enough info so that we can see HE will not be supported by the poor.

While you might not know much about income tax, I'm sure you've grasped the basics of how it works.

So with the tiniest bit of brain power I'm sure you're able to think of ways how it can be applied so that it impacts less on the poor than it does now, and impacts more on the rich than it does now.

As that taxation would be used to cover HE costs (and everything else), I'm sure you're capable of grasping how it can shift HE cost away from the poorest towards the richest. After all, all you need do is think of the proposed reforms in reverse.

So there you have the basics. You'll have to wait on phil for a more detailed version.

[worm]

As that taxation would be used to cover HE costs (and everything else), I'm sure you're capable of grasping how it can shift HE cost away from the poorest towards the richest.

[worm]

just me pointing out that you're everything you accuse other of.

[llcoolphil]

Fair enough. But what I restated was something 100% different from your accusations.

So I'll still be wanting your retraction. Or you need to pull out those posts I never made.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, you've already said this and been met with the fact that HE would still be a middle class institution.

It's been that for less than 30 years. Tho of course it was even more exclusive back then, hugely so.

But until such time as every person has an identical attitude towards education (which ain't ever going to happen), some sectors of society will always be under-represented.

That doesn't mean that nothing should or can be done. There's lots that can be done - including what is going on currently, and which hasn't been cut back on due to the specific insistence of the Libs within the coalition; and more still. But none of that is instant, or fee-dependent.

What is fee-dependent is the numbers from the classes below middle class that take up the opportunity that is there available to them, and this is where phil's take falls down. It's idiot-ville to moan that some classes get more out of HE than others while backing a plan (higher fees) which ensures that scenario is taken to an even more exclusive basis - which is what phil has done.

Should I just pick up my copy of The Communist Manifesto for a better understanding of your opinion on this issue?

Yeah, you should. It'll be just perfect for your very narrow and tiny mind.

[llcoolphil]

What is fee-dependent is the numbers from the classes below middle class that take up the opportunity that is there available to them, and this is where phil's take falls down. It's idiot-ville to moan that some classes get more out of HE than others while backing a plan (higher fees) which ensures that scenario is taken to an even more exclusive basis - which is what phil has done.

[eFestivals]

Make the case or dont, Im not arsed.

I'll take your own line on this, thanks.

As for you not being arsed, reeeeaaaallllllyyyy.

You harangued me with fantasy bollocks, got found out, and rather than run away feeling the fool you've chosen to try and bluff it out.

You can choose to show you're not arsed, or not. I guess we'll get to see.

[eFestivals]

MEANS TESTED BURSARIES

Are you actually so f*ckin blinded by your own ego that you cant read what I have quoted directly at you on three separate occasions and mentioned on at least half a dozen?

Ahhh, so you think making the poor beg for what is rightfully theirs is righting a wrong do you?

I'll leave you to it.

[eFestivals]

Meanwhile, you're also not able to offer anything that "would level the playing field" (because it's an impossibility, outside of a 'Brave New World' sort-of solution). All you can do is - the same as me - implement some things which make it less unfair, while not making it fair.

Well dont make the case and I'll continue to understand that you won't because you cant. For the record, you have previously said that what I proposed for levelling the field had a 10 to 15 year lead time. Now you suggest it's a Brave New World fantasy. Do keep up with your own polemic.

It ain't me that's blind with rage matey. See above.

I'm the polemic, am I?

[dakyras]

the 3% is going into a private pension plan, isn't it? and not a massive pot of money that the employee might not see a return on from his/her state pension.

[eFestivals]

the 3% is going into a private pension plan, isn't it? and not a massive pot of money that the employee might not see a return on from his/her state pension.

Yep it's going into a private pension pot.

So that VERY DEFINITELY means it's money they might not see again. Just ask Equitable Life customers.

[dakyras]

Yep it's going into a private pension pot.

So that VERY DEFINITELY means it's money they might not see again. Just ask Equitable Life customers.

[eFestivals]

Oh, shush.

Regardless, it means it's not a tax though, because the govt isn't getting the money.

I didn't say it was "a tax".

What I made a comparison with was Dave Moron saying that a 1% rise in employers NI would be "a tax on jobs", and pointed out that an extra 3% of costs to an employer via this pension scheme is three times as big a "a tax on jobs" than that NI rise would have been.

From any employers point of a view it's simply an extra cost to them, which lessens their ability to employ further staff - and it has that effect at three times the rate of that abandoned NI rise.