So you get a £910.bonus instead of £1000. It's still a bonus! The problem with these latest generations of people is that they increasingly have a sense of entitlement. 'Twasn't like that in my day, I can tell ya!
Wealth creation vs wealth distribution...
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I will ask and get back to you.
Python, class. Yeah the kids have the iPhones and DVDS, flat screens but I am still glad I did not have to worry about that side (loans, tuition fees) in the 1980s.
I went on two demos in the 80s, Abortion (pro - something to do with weeks) and grants not rising with inflation. Wow, first world problems.
No need, as I'm just explaining the impact... i.e. the repayment of the student loan means your effective bonus is 9% less than it would otherwise be. So if your bonus was £1,000 your effective bonus will only be £910. If your bonus was £5,000 then your effective bonus will now be £4,550 etc.
To me that is not really "getting stung"... you're still better off by 91% of the bonus (pre-tax). Would they rather not have the bonus at all?
I've noticed that in recent years, with the crimes and transgressions becoming so egregious and irrefutable (multiple rapes, violent insurrections and the open embrace of fascism and Naziism supplementing their usual bigotries), that regular strawmanning has become somewhat less effective at distracting, and they've adopted the "let's just focus on the future" (or "what happened in Vegas...) strategy. Now, everything they've done in the past is no longer of consequence--and, apparently, contrary to popular wisdom, does not inform future actions--and they're only concerned with "moving forward". There's gotta be a term for that, I just don't know what it is.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Fair enough, I was not aware of the percentages as I paid mine off.No need, as I'm just explaining the impact... i.e. the repayment of the student loan means your effective bonus is 9% less than it would otherwise be. So if your bonus was £1,000 your effective bonus will only be £910. If your bonus was £5,000 then your effective bonus will now be £4,550 etc.
To me that is not really "getting stung"... you're still better off by 91% of the bonus (pre-tax). Would they rather not have the bonus at all?
Like I said I was lucky to be a graduate in the 80s in that respect. Did Starmer consider ending loans for tuition fees? Taking that back as a cost for the tax payer?
That I will check.
Fairly sure it's not a campaign pledge, as now too expensive, at c.£30bn a year, or something like that. Think they wanted to prioritise NHS.
This is such a bullshit troll thread, I just don't get the point. I mean, are we talking about education in general, or are we talking about educating people in finance management or, heh, "wealth creation"? To the former, when you've only got so much funding available and all of it goes to your living expenses, you don't really have anything left over for investment. As the majority of Americans, apparently, can barely even afford a 500 dollar emergency, all of that is kind of irrelevant. As to the latter, that's what education--that thing that conservatives disdain (can't talk about slavery or the genocide of American Indians, but you can "teach" creation bullshit)--is, isn't it? You learn a bunch of shit, then you can survive in this world, one way or another. Or is Seattle only concerned with the sort of "wealth creation" that involves exploiting others and extracting limited resources? (Rhetorical question, but I eagerly await some idiotic response about "infinite intellectual capital" and how "it's not a zero sum game".)
And what is this even supposed to mean?
And what is this even supposed to mean?
So are you talking about education generally or education in finance shit? And how are we supposed to know what you're talking about when you can't even state it in plain English? Or are you talking about educating wealth? And what exactly might that be? I mean, that's how it reads, cuz you apparently don't know basic English. Seriously, take an adult education class in basic English language skills or something.
The point that the OP was trying to make was that stupid liberals only want to redistribute someone else's wealth, whereas wise conservatives focus on creating wealth rather than taking it from other people.
That's the trap that the poor fall into. It's all well and good to extoll the virtues of investing and saving for a rainy day. (And, if we believe Seattle, that's a virtue that liberals don't want to teach.) But when your choices are 1) invest or 2) fix the brakes on your car that are failing, it's not too smart to invest that money.
In general, liberals promote public education as a means for the poor to get out of poverty. The more you learn, the more monetizable skills you have, and the more you are able to work (and save.)
One of the most valuable things I learned from my mother was how to make very little money go a very long way. As I got older, I realized that my mother's skills in that regard border on preternatural, but I do ok. Bluntly, I haven't "worked" even remotely the number of hours one might expect from persons my age--partly due to laziness, but also partly owing to a disability which renders me inconsistently reliable (randomly blacking out for a couple days at a time is a problem for some). Yet I've travelled multiple continents, done lots of things which generally require a fair bit of money to do, and lived in certain places typically off-limits to people of meager resources.
It's easy for me to critique the way so many people manage their finances, but it's also utterly ridiculous and astoundingly ignorant for me to do so. I've got certain "skills", some weird sort of charm or something that sometimes makes people amenable to financing me, and certain undeniable advantages--namely, not having kids and being white and male. Escaping the cycle of poverty--or even sufficiently well within one's means enough to set aside money for investment or whatever--is difficult, oftentimes even for people who are exceptionally bright and/or motivated. And this difficulty is compounded by things like kids, sickness, sometimes "acts of god", and especially inherent "disadvantages" defined by race, gender, sexuality, etc. It just seems like there's gotta be a point at which people will stop pretending not to comprehend these compounding factors and continue to assert that everyone is just "bad with money".
Yep. A lot of people on the right side of things cannot acknowledge this. This ties in with concepts of privilege, which is a concept they reject with all the vigor of a vampire being fed a piece of garlic toast.
As an example, we too were poor. We lived in apartments, spare rooms and for three months, an RV. But both my parents were teachers, and made sure all of us went to school and did well. And we had every other advantage - none of us were black, or disabled, or mentally ill, or immigrants, or non-Christian. That's a tremendous amount of privilege, and it let all of us (me and my sisters) succeed as long as we put the work in.
To many conservatives, telling them they had privilege growing up is the same as telling them "you didn't work hard." They don't see that you can have privilege and still work your butt off to succeed, or that someone who does NOT have that privilege can work just as hard and not succeed, John Scalzi has a good essay on it (who I also stole the garlic toast metaphor from) comparing it to something that conservative tech bros can appreciate - a video game.
