Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
there seems to be some sort of flaw. like... it's those kids' parents that will be paying the fees, 'cos they're the rich ones, not the kids themselves.
maybe it's be better in a way, instead of say taxing all the richer people more to subsidise universitites. i mean, just because you'd be paying for an ACTUAL product, if that makes sense.
what exactly is a "rich person" anyway? would it be done on income? cos what's to stop stupidly rich people taking a few years off work while their kid sails through uni for free?
and also, where will this stop? will the nhs come along and say that rich people should pay for their own healthcare?
How do they define "well off"? Surely within the segment marked "well off" you'll still have families who'll struggle to pay the 30,000, meaning you'd create another inequality gap there? It's a good idea in principle, but then there's the fact that a horrible class system could come into play, with universities leaning more towards the "well off" students because they can afford it and more working-class kids being knocked back.
on a day when gerorogogogogogie is probably off in his best hunting foxes.
"BOXING DAY HUNT"??
gosh, stupid non-university educated commoners.
i just figured they'd make a weekend of it this year