Student Riots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

Schmenke. You have made your mind up, regardless of what I have written, so it is perhaps understandable that you would write such nonsense.

I have not implied that people go to University to earn a high wage ...

---

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

...
We either have a system where the people getting a financial benefit through the University system ....

---

Apologies, perhaps I misunderstood this statement, but it does seem to imply that the purpose of a universtiy system is to provide a financial benefit.
The purpose of the universtiy system is to provide an advanced education.

I have read your posts skc, and believe it or not, I agree with some of them, but I honestly fail to grasp your notion of a higher income being a "privilege" for which a repayment into the "system" is somehow is required :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

...
I have not implied that people go to University to earn a high wage but I have stated that those benefiting from a degree education which results in a high wage should contribute a small amount of this privilege back into the system.....

---

A high wage is not a privilege, but the result of any combination of education, hard work, perseverance, and at times good fortune. The "repayment" into the "system" is through a higher taxation scheme (as has been mentioned numerous times), not to mention the benefit of the service provided to the society, which can't necessarily be measured in financial terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Leaving universities aside, do you believe in increased taxation for the rich? If not, why is a tax on intelligence acceptable?

---

I do. Currently there is zero tax for those earning under £6.5k, a basic rate to about £40k and a super tax over £150k. There is also a reduction of £6.5k allowance over £100k.

That seems fair and I am glad the Labour tax on the poor was defeated.

But then again, I earn my money and pay my tax off my own back. I do not think I am entitled to free training in order to earn more and have paid in the past for the privilidge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

And replace them with....?

Personally I'd still like my bins emptied, my local hospital to be efficient and well-managed, to be safe from crime, for kids to be educated and protected, the roads maintained.... I could go on.

Who's going to do all this and more once you "sack the lot of them"? The private sector - for a profit?

How do you fund the massive amount of unemployment claims which would result? How do you replace the lost tax income? How do you make up the lost VAT income from these people now facing no disposable income?

Think it through, it's becoming impossible to have reasonable debate with you if you spew out this ill-conceived gibberish.


Nice try, but the methodolgy hasn't changed; and in any case the figures are compiled by the Office of National Statistics, not the government. But, as ever, don't let facts get in your way.

---

It is hard to debate when you choose to not read posts correctly.

Would you describe a policeman, nurse, bin man, teacher etc as a 'non job' as I wouldn't. But a diversity out reach manager or equality target manager etc as being worthless and they are just parasites like the dole wallers but worse as they leach more money from the taxpayers.

Public Sector doesn't pay tax though, it's just an adjustment in what we pay them, the private sector is the true wealth creator for the country not these parasites.

ONS bunch of ****wits, just professional liars. Am sure 50% of them lot could go without any drop off in service. The public sector has too many staff and a lot needs to go and it can be done without any of the essential frontline services being harmed.

My mate Eric Pickles is doing a grand job. Slash and burn - fills me with a warm glow to think of all these tossers facing the sack and not before time they never should have been hired in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

I do. Currently there is zero tax for those earning under £6.5k, a basic rate to about £40k and a super tax over £150k. There is also a reduction of £6.5k allowance over £100k.

That seems fair and I am glad the Labour tax on the poor was defeated.

---

Fair enough, and apologies if I seemed to suggest you were being hypocritical on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

But then again, I earn my money and pay my tax off my own back. I do not think I am entitled to free training in order to earn more and have paid in the past for the privilidge.

---

I do not, however, equate a university education with training. As stated many times in this discussion, a clear demarcation between what is best studied at university and what is not would be of great benefit to the whole higher education system. Plus I feel that far more training should be offered free of charge by employers, whether in the public or private sectors, if employees desire it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

It is hard to debate when you choose to not read posts correctly.

---

With respect, your posts are either not of the intellectual depth that makes them liable to misreading, or so badly written in terms of being confusing and contradictory that they do pose a problem even to those with a high level of comprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

It is hard to debate when you choose to not read posts correctly.

---

I've revisited your post and it is quite open to misinterpretation, especially considering your previously stated views on the public sector.

Quote:

---

Would you describe a policeman, nurse, bin man, teacher etc as a 'non job' as I wouldn't. But a diversity out reach manager or equality target manager etc as being worthless and they are just parasites like the dole wallers but worse as they leach more money from the taxpayers.

---

I don't have sufficient knowledge of what "diversity out reach managers" or "equality target managers" do to make an informed opinion. Perhaps you could enlighten me why these particular two posts, for example, are unnecessary; and what steps you would instead put in place to ensure that public bodies have the maximum possible reach and, seperately, don't breach equality legislation.

Quote:

---

ONS bunch of ****wits, just professional liars. Am sure 50% of them lot could go without any drop off in service.

---

Strange, they're independently audited and trusted by all the major political parties including the ones you support. I'd be interested in what basis you accuse them of lying, and what you know about their staffing levels to make you so sure they could operate with half the staff?

I assume you can answer these points and weren't just plucking figures and opinions out of the ether?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I do not, however, equate a university education with training. As stated many times in this discussion, a clear demarcation between what is best studied at university and what is not would be of great benefit to the whole higher education system. Plus I feel that far more training should be offered free of charge by employers, whether in the public or private sectors, if employees desire it.

---

Now, that I agree with. Apprentiships are great for someone getting paid to learn a trade and the employer receives the benefit of their investment but additional vocational training benefits both parties as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

...the private sector is the true wealth creator for the country...

---

Spoken like a true devotee of the CPS.

This belief that leaving the private sector free to do what it does best, unhindered by regulation and government involvement, and it will do so in the interests of the country is misguided. Yes, the private sector produces wealth, but it does so, above all else, for itself and investors.

Your contempt for the public sector, and for many of those in need of those services (which includes most of us at some time or another) is deplorable and simply reflects the fundamental reason why the Tory vote has been steadily declining, and why the country did not trust the latest incarnation of Conservatism to have a majority even when up against an unpopular Labour government.

The private sector has much to offer (even if it's not those promised jobs as yet) but the country needs a public sector to provide services where profit is not the primary motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The private sector has much to offer (even if it's not those promised jobs as yet) but the country needs a public sector to provide services where profit is not the primary motivation.

---

On that note, we didn't discuss the recent announcement that the Forensic Science Service is to be closed as it's losing money. So if you happen to know any rape victims, be sure to remind them that that expensive swab didn't make enough profit :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

I've revisited your post and it is quite open to misinterpretation, especially considering your previously stated views on the public sector.


I don't have sufficient knowledge of what "diversity out reach managers" or "equality target managers" do to make an informed opinion. Perhaps you could enlighten me why these particular two posts, for example, are unnecessary; and what steps you would instead put in place to ensure that public bodies have the maximum possible reach and, seperately, don't breach equality legislation.


Strange, they're independently audited and trusted by all the major political parties including the ones you support. I'd be interested in what basis you accuse them of lying, and what you know about their staffing levels to make you so sure they could operate with half the staff?

I assume you can answer these points and weren't just plucking figures and opinions out of the ether?

---

No it isn't, if I say get rid of the non jobs then that clearly does not include essential staff does it?

Going to collect my daughter so haven't time now - but the job titles alone show they are not essential in the same way that the likes of copper, nurse, teacher are - you'd have to be a bit weird if you thought they were essential and besides the fact things seemed to manage fine in 97 shows that the 2½m extra jobs Labour created are not needed so can all go.

ONS have been criticised many times in the past for false figures. Feel free to google them. All of the public sector is over staffed, they have to be to cover for sickies and duvet days.