Budget 2015 Discussion

First topic message reminder :

First Tory budget in 16 years or something like that, summary from the Beeb below:

Personal taxation and pay

Introduction of a new national living wage for all workers aged over 25, starting at £7.20 an hour from April 2016 and set to reach £9 by 2020 - giving an estimated 2.5 million people an average £5,000 rise over five years

Low Pay Commission to advice on future changes to rate

Inheritance tax threshold will be increased to £1m from 2017

Personal allowance, at which people start paying tax, to rise to £11,000 next year

The point at which people start paying income tax at 40p to rise from £42,385 to £43,000 next year

Mortgage interest relief for buy-to-let homebuyers to be restricted to basic rate of income tax

Welfare and pensions

Tax credits and Universal Credit to be restricted to two children, affecting those born after April 2017.

Income threshold for tax credits to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850

Working-age benefits to be frozen for four years - including tax credits and local housing allowance, but maternity pay and disability benefits exempted

Rents in social housing sector will be reduced by 1% a year for the next four years

Higher-income households in social housing will be required to pay rents at the market rate

Disability benefits will not be taxed or means-tested while state pension triple lock to be protected

18-21-year-olds will not be entitled to claim housing benefit automatically, with a new "earn to learn" obligation

Employment and Support Allowance payments for claimants deemed able to work to be "aligned" with Jobseeker's Allowance for new claimants

Green Paper published on proposals for "a radical change" to pension saving system

Annual tax relief on pension contributions to be limited to £10,000 a year

The state of the economy

Economy grew by 3% in 2014

2.4% growth forecast in 2015, 0.1% lower than predicted in March, followed by 2.3% and 2.4% in the two following years

One million extra jobs predicted to be created by 2020

Public borrowing/deficit/spending

Deficit to be cut at same pace as during last Parliament - securing a budget surplus a year later than planned in 2019-20

Borrowing set to fall from £69.5bn this year to £43.1bn, £24.3bn and £6bn before hitting a £10bn surplus in 2019-20

Debt as a share of GDP to fall from 80.3% this year to 79.1%, 77.2%, 74.7%, 71.5% and 68.5% in successive years

1% public sector pay rise to continue for next four years

£37bn of further spending cuts by 2020, including £12bn of welfare cuts and £5bn from tax avoidance

Alcohol, tobacco, gambling and fuel

No rise in fuel duty with rates continuing to be frozen

Major reform to vehicle excise duties to pay for a new road-building and maintenance fund in England

New VED bands for new cars to be introduced from 2017, pegged to emissions - 95% of car owners will pay £140 a year

Alcohol and tobacco duties not mentioned in statement

Business

Corporation tax to be cut to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020

Permanent non-dom status to be abolished - from April 2017, anyone who has lived in the UK for 15 of the past 20 years will pay same level of tax as other UK citizens

£7.2bn to be raised from clampdown on tax avoidance and tax evasion with HMRC budget increased by £750m

Bank levy rate to be gradually reduced over the next six years and a new 8% surcharge on bank profits introduced from January 2016

Cap on charges imposed by claims management companies and an increase in insurance premium tax to 9.5% from November

New apprenticeship levy for large employers

Climate Change Levy exemption for renewable electricity to be removed.

National Insurance employment allowance for small firms to be increased by 50% to £3,000 from 2016

Dividend tax credit to be replaced with a new tax-free allowance of £5,000 on dividend income. Rates of dividend tax to be set at 7.5%, 32.5% and 38.1%.

Health and education

NHS will receive a further £8bn by 2020 (in addition to the £2bn already announced)

Student maintenance grants to be replaced with loans from 2016-17, to be paid back once people earn more than £21,000 a year

The maintenance loan will increase to £8,200

New university professorships to be created to mark the Queen's 90th birthday

Housing/infrastructure/transport/regions

Control over fire services, planning and children's services to be handed to consortium of 10 councils in Greater Manchester

Discussions on devolution of services to Sheffield, Liverpool and West Yorkshire

£30m for new body to promote integrated transport - including use of Oyster cards - in the north of England

Rent-a-room relief scheme to rise to £7,500

Defence

Government to spend 2% of GDP on defence every year, meeting Nato target

Spending on defence to rise in real terms every year during the Parliament

New £1.5bn Joint Security Fund to be created

Measures announced before Budget

The cost of funding free TV licences for the over-75s will be transferred from the government to the BBC between 2018 and 2021

The annual household benefit cap will be reduced to £23,000 in London and to a lower level in the rest of Britain.

Subsidies for social housing will be phased out with local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London - having to pay up to the market rent

A consultation will take place on changing Sunday trading laws

Recipients of the Victoria Cross and George Cross will see annual pension annuities rise from £2,129 to £10,000, paid for by bank fines

-----------------------------------

Personally I haven't been able to get passed the attack on BTL investors, surely a core Tory voter pool, which seems absured. Crossing my fingers for a U-turn on that one......!!

Others' thoughts?

The big headline was families lose out on £260 a year....

They probably pay more than that in interest on their 98" TV's.

Don't be silly Sean....they fail to make repayments, have the tv repossessed then go get another from Brighter Homes.

DAVE667 wrote:Don't be silly Sean....they fail to make repayments,  have the tv repossessed then go get another from Brighter Homes.

and use shake'n'vac?

superflyweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's very rarely that the child suffers, rather the parent has less money to spend on new clothes or doing up a brand new car, I have very little compassion and disagree strongly with the benefit system anyway.

Sadly, that just isnt true. As I know from the kids my girlfriend works with whose parents never struggle to feed their 40 a day habit, but the kids do go without the odd dinner, and never get new shoes. In fact, these parents were tight on money so told their 9 year old child that he was wrong about what day his birthday was on and delayed it for two weeks.

Sadly from my experiences Dolph it is true in part, granted you do have those that struggle and they are the ones who do need help but at the same time you get single parents who survive off the state and do live a life of luxury.

Define "luxury"?

Hammer has been reading out of the IDS handbook.....No doubt he thinks patients in hospices are fit enough to work..

He is the military guy out of American beauty.........I reckon in a few years he'll be having the same conversation with his daughter...

"You better not be a "LES" girl....

"Daddy I'm the best piece of ass in three states"..

Barry Goldwater lives....

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I'd always encourage someone to get a degree. The loans are also a funny number when you have them hanging over you. I mean, I dont even consider it money. The world is far more opened up with a degree.

Degrees should be for the academically gifted, for those targetting careers that will benefit.

There are gifted tradesman who can earn very good money taking the apprenticeship route for whom Uni would be a disaster. 3 years out for a worthless piece of paper and a stack load of debt at the end.

Lots of other stuff can be better taught at technical colleges, and again don't require 3 years of study and what should be research led institutions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Hammer has been reading out of the IDS handbook...

Top Hat and Duty need to raise their games. They are in danger of not being the most right wing people on here.

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends what the degree is in my opinion. That 1 percent pay rise is a pisser as no pay rises for me really for the next 4 years, means i'm near enough spending 8 months of the year away from the family to do nothing but pay a mortgage. Benefits here I come

You know there are jobs in the private sector? Could always go there if you're not happy with your pay.

Why haven't any of the other 5.7 million public sector employees figured this out.

Because they're incapable of getting private sector jobs? Bit like those protected by Trade Unions. Public sector absorbs a lot of folk that can't or won't cut it in the private sector.

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends what the degree is in my opinion. That 1 percent pay rise is a pisser as no pay rises for me really for the next 4 years, means i'm near enough spending 8 months of the year away from the family to do nothing but pay a mortgage. Benefits here I come

You know there are jobs in the private sector? Could always go there if you're not happy with your pay.

Unfortunately Scott and Toppy, the training i've got is very specific to what I do and can't be passed into the private sector (the fact we don't do 2 of the modules to get the 'full' qualification is a problem too.) Sat the ICND1 a few months back but failed (by 2 effin questions) and am studying for it again.

I wouldn't mind the pay freeze quite so much if they hadn't just restructured the whole bloody thing making my wages worth a lot less. Have also said the minute that the only thing i'm working for is to pay the mortgage with the kids missing out is the day I'll walk. (Whats the point in me being away for 8 months (and I mean AWAY) and missing out on what they do if theirs no gain for it???

Hammer whilst some of what you say is true, it's vastly inflated the amount of people play the system like that. You've got to take personal circumstances into consideration as well, We planned and budgeted for the kids but due to the wage freeze we now struggle sometimes if anything goes wrong and I'm pretty certain I earn more than the average too.

Whoops forgot, Sean there's nowt wrong with shake n vac, it's a quid in the pound shop (shock horror) and keeps the rug smelling nice after the dogs been belting in and out with dirty paws.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It's not really 'relief' though.  At the moment you pay tax of your profit after costs.

The changes mean PRS landlord businesses get to continue doing the same, but private individuals get totally screwed.  Given the 'mom & pop' private investors make up the majority of the housing supply in the PRS sector, the actual result of this will be investors will only buy (and therefore supply) the cheapest & nastiest flats and are totally disincentivised to repair or improve them so tenants will be worse off.

Terribly thought through policy.

Individuals struggling to afford to buy a house to live in don't get any tax relief - that was abolished a few decades ago.  Difficult to see why other individuals wanting to buy properties to let out should continue to be treated much more favourably for tax purposes - with the better off among that group currently receiving the most help, through tax relief at higher rate.

And the actual result will be a terribly under-funded and under-supplied rental market. Ironically, this will actually WORSEN the situation for first time buyers.

Current investors have now had their income profiles destroyed. Therefore other than moving off-shore to avoid this punitive tax treatment, investors now will ONLY be able to look at BTL investment for capital growth, not income. Therefore as well as having no incentive to improve their properties or keep them in good repair, without being able to make any money on rent they will have to recycle capital into MORE properties.

It makes more sense for me in 2017, when my next refi is due, to take money out and buy more flats (probably at the cheaper and nastier end). Thus reducing supply of the kind of housing stock FTBs will be looking at.

For those saying Scott & Hammer etc are grossly misrepresenting that sector of society, how many of you actually have experience about what you're defending/talking about?

I wasn't half as embittered until I spent 9 months as a social housing valuer. Day in day out I was inspecting social housing properties (i.e. council housing given to the poor for free or damn close to it) and what I saw disgusted me. It wasn't isolated incidents. It was almost every home that seemed to have a higher standard of living than me and my 3 fellow juniors in a shared house in Kilburn paying 50% of our net salary in full market rent.

Wide screen TVs, home cinemans, multiple games consoles, photos of nice holidays abroad, top of the range tech etc all were absolutely standard across the board. The only isolated exceptions were nice old bidies that had been in social housing for a lifetime. They were also the ones that respected their properties the greatest.

Outside of them the level of disrepair and general trashing was as digusting as it was routine.

That experience covered London, the South East, the South West, Home Counties and the North West. A pretty wide spread and, at over a thousand properties, and good size representative sample set.

Live in an area that has a lot of social housing and have a family that has been in social housing for years.

It's far too easy sometimes to blame people on a lower scale for everything. Some people do play the system and take the pee big time but a lot of others don't. A lot of parents go without to give their kids what they need and make sure theirs food on the table but due to the stigma attached to them they can't get any better as people constantly look down on them because the family down the road has everything and has never worked.

The benefit system needs a big overhaul and needs someone who actively knows the problems faced by people to help with it. Otherwise your going to end up with a lot more families struggling to get by and a lot more kids being led astray.

Put it this way, we have a problem round our way with dirtbikes going up and down the alleys etc, it's done by a group of around 10 young lads who's parents don't seem to care that much. Everyone moans about the young lads in the area but it's them 10, the rest of them aren't involved but get looked at the same. Should we therefore ban all the kids from going out or being able to own a scooter etc.

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends what the degree is in my opinion. That 1 percent pay rise is a pisser as no pay rises for me really for the next 4 years, means i'm near enough spending 8 months of the year away from the family to do nothing but pay a mortgage. Benefits here I come

You know there are jobs in the private sector? Could always go there if you're not happy with your pay.

I would love to work in the Private Sector. My skills are transferable, but I become stuck at the point they ask for 'industry' experience. It's funny because I have just taken a new role in a different industry to which my new employer told me I would pick up industry knowledge in a month.

Sadly the Private Sector for my profession is too lazy and cheap to invest in Public Sector workers.

I notice GO has been on yhe back foot since the budget after the IFS showed that working people will be worse off because of this budget

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends what the degree is in my opinion. That 1 percent pay rise is a pisser as no pay rises for me really for the next 4 years, means i'm near enough spending 8 months of the year away from the family to do nothing but pay a mortgage. Benefits here I come

You know there are jobs in the private sector? Could always go there if you're not happy with your pay.

Why haven't any of the other 5.7 million public sector employees figured this out.

Because they're incapable of getting private sector jobs? Bit like those protected by Trade Unions. Public sector absorbs a lot of folk that can't or won't cut it in the private sector.

Those naughty Trade unions.......Yes all those good salt of the earth bosses should be able to get rid of those no good blue collar scroats for anything they want...

They don't earn much so they must be scum...

As someone who has worked in the public sector as always tends to be the case on here there are gross misrepresentations being made that only apply to a small percentage of workers. Am not going to suggest there are not people within there who are in a comfort zone. There are plenty who know being vaguely competent and turning up when you’re meant to will pretty much guarantee you a job for live. However as someone who has worked for over 20 years, only five of which were in the public sector I can also say some of the brightest and hardest working people I have ever worked with were in the public sector. There are also plenty who would easily cut it in the private sector.
 
Appreciate lazy stereotypes are much the preferred option on here but occasionally it is good to let the actual truth pop its head round the door.

Na, bunch of cruisers in pointless jobs labour invented for them.

wheelchair1991 wrote:I notice GO has been on yhe back foot since the budget after the IFS showed that working people will be worse off because of this budget

I'm working and my 'worse off' blows pretty much anyone else in the country out the water.

Yeah but your a landlord so we can put up with that Toppy

As Rowley points out there are some people cruising through work but that's the same in the private sector too. On the other hand would you rather have a lot of them people out of work claiming a sh!t load of benefits (One of my arguments against reduncies with no training offered)

It does need an overhaul too from the top to the bottom as there's far too many bosses and people on inflated wages.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends what the degree is in my opinion. That 1 percent pay rise is a pisser as no pay rises for me really for the next 4 years, means i'm near enough spending 8 months of the year away from the family to do nothing but pay a mortgage. Benefits here I come

You know there are jobs in the private sector? Could always go there if you're not happy with your pay.

Why haven't any of the other 5.7 million public sector employees figured this out.

Because they're incapable of getting private sector jobs? Bit like those protected by Trade Unions. Public sector absorbs a lot of folk that can't or won't cut it in the private sector.

Those naughty Trade unions.......Yes all those good salt of the earth bosses should be able to get rid of those no good blue collar scroats for anything they want...

They don't earn much so they must be scum...

DON'T EARN MUCH?? ARE YOU FOOKING KIDDING????!!!!

Tube drivers are almost the highest paid salaried workers in the ENTIRE COUNTRY! And across all earners they are in the top 10%.

Rowley wrote:As someone who has worked in the public sector as always tends to be the case on here there are gross misrepresentations being made that only apply to a small percentage of workers. Am not going to suggest there are not people within there who are in a comfort zone. There are plenty who know being vaguely competent and turning up when you’re meant to will pretty much guarantee you a job for live. However as someone who has worked for over 20 years, only five of which were in the public sector I can also say some of the brightest and hardest working people I have ever worked with were in the public sector. There are also plenty who would easily cut it in the private sector.
 
Appreciate lazy stereotypes are much the preferred option on here but occasionally it is good to let the actual truth pop its head round the door.

A few years ago I did some work for a company that buys in and sells entertainment media..........

I went into their canteen for a coffee and I over heard two management scroats bragging about how many employees they had got rid of that week like it was a badge of honor. "That all..... I've got rid of 12 etc......"

Don't worry that these people probably have bills to pay....It's not a game..

It was Blair that changed the Tribunal laws and the Tories have since took them further toward the benefit of the management.....

Yep I'm a believer in Unions and always be... although I'm afraid they are becoming more power less all the time..

As always, it's easy to like & support something that doesn't affect you.

Typical left-liberal approach.

TopHat24/7 wrote:As always, it's easy to like & support something that doesn't affect you.

Typical left-liberal approach.

You're right it's only right wingers that are genuine people...

You've both got very good points, and the unions have served a good purpose over the years ushering in decent pay and rights for workers, unfortunately they aren't helping their overall image with what's going on with Tube workers/rail workers (seriously they are paid massively for what they do.)

Not about being genuine.

It's about people pontificating and getting all self-righteous and high&mighty about issues they don't bear the burden of.

All very easy loving the Trade Unions when you're not the one they're screwing. It's why public support was so low for the teacher walkouts a couple of years ago. The effect up and down the country was for parents, a lot of whom were much more hard up than the teachers, having to lose money taking time off work or forced to find the money to pay for childcare.

It's the same whenever the gypos are kicking off. All these celebs saying they're being treated badly etc, when it's not their back garden the travellers are camped on. Not their homes they're robbing or local area they're trashing.

It's all complete hypocritical BS.

I think I was about 9 when I learned to drive on tracks at Legoland. Yet tube workers are paid into the £50ks...

Scottrf wrote:I think I was about 9 when I learned to drive on tracks at Legoland. Yet tube workers are paid into the £50ks...

Do they drive on the left hand side of the road at legoland ??

I think so. It's been a while.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends what the degree is in my opinion. That 1 percent pay rise is a pisser as no pay rises for me really for the next 4 years, means i'm near enough spending 8 months of the year away from the family to do nothing but pay a mortgage. Benefits here I come

You know there are jobs in the private sector? Could always go there if you're not happy with your pay.

Why haven't any of the other 5.7 million public sector employees figured this out.

Because they're incapable of getting private sector jobs? Bit like those protected by Trade Unions. Public sector absorbs a lot of folk that can't or won't cut it in the private sector.

Ah yes. The perfect private sector. No lead swingers or shysters there eh? Yep, only successful people in the private sector. No private company has even gone bankrupt. The public sector is for the useless. Of course, it's all clear to me now .

Haha it was a somewhat tongue in cheek comment - reflective of the one I was replying to!

However it does hold true in a number of instances and is a signifcant point all the same.

Take an obvious case like a doctor, nurse or teacher. All highly educated and highly trained and easily capable of private sector work. Many doctors do this anyway, consulting privately to boot their incomes.

However tube drivers were my principal focus. £60k pa for little educational qualification or skillset. Bet less than 10% of tube drivers could earn half that if they quit the tube and got a job in the private sector doing 'something'. THAT is why they strike.

Local government is full of dross too that would never get a decent well paid private sector job.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Haha it was a somewhat tongue in cheek comment - reflective of the one I was replying to!.

Everytime someone fronts you up....You backtrack !!

I can hardly defend a comment that of 5 million or whatever people there are in the public sector not a SINGLE ONE could work private.

I pointed it out for dimmer folk like you.

The crux of my point still stands.

TopHat24/7 wrote:...However tube drivers were my principal focus.  £60k pa for little educational qualification or skillset.  Bet less than 10% of tube drivers could earn half that if they quit the tube and got a job in the private sector doing 'something'.  THAT is why they strike....

I'm not a big fan of the tube drivers either, given they start on ~£50k for 6 months training and do, as far as I can work out, little to justify that. Actually, hope they keep this rubbish up as I can see no reason (and the system would seem ideal for it in any case) why the underground isn't entirely automated as far as the train driving's concerned. Alternatively, train up enough of the Army mechanised people (or any competent individuals for that matter - it's only 6 months training after all!), apologise to the public for the disruption, lay on additional buses, publicise exactly what they earn along with their job descriptions and call the drivers' bluff. Screw 'em.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I can hardly defend a comment that of 5 million or whatever people there are in the public sector not a SINGLE ONE could work private.

I pointed it out for dimmer folk like you.

The crux of my point still stands.

Maybe, but you (and those like you) always trumpet how universally great the private sector is and how universally bad the public sector is. Someone like you no doubt came up with that derogatory "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

Not saying the private sector is great. At all. Full of failure in fact.

But the private sector receycles failure and the cost is to private indivudals, consumers, investors & lenders.

Whereas the public sector abides failure and the cost is suffered by citizens & tax-payers.


And I would never have said that phrase, coming from a family of teachers, I would have been shot!!

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...However tube drivers were my principal focus.  £60k pa for little educational qualification or skillset.  Bet less than 10% of tube drivers could earn half that if they quit the tube and got a job in the private sector doing 'something'.  THAT is why they strike....

I'm not a big fan of the tube drivers either, given they start on ~£50k for 6 months training and do, as far as I can work out, little to justify that. Actually, hope they keep this rubbish up as I can see no reason (and the system would seem ideal for it in any case) why the underground isn't entirely automated as far as the train driving's concerned. Alternatively, train up enough of the Army mechanised people (or any competent individuals for that matter - it's only 6 months training after all!), apologise to the public for the disruption, lay on additional buses, publicise exactly what they earn along with their job descriptions and call the drivers' bluff. Screw 'em.

The Victoria was actually DESIGNED to be driverless, I understand.

But again, gov't buckled under TU pressure (back in the 60s).

So... does one have to be British to become a Tube driver, or can anyone apply to make £60k a year?

Internal people are offered first, if not then external. Hard to get a look in.

You also probably wouldn't get a work visa, in absence of a Brit passport.....

The only downside I expect is seeing suicidal types jumping in front of the train...

I imagine there are plenty of West Ham fans that get the tube..

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not saying the private sector is great. At all. Full of failure in fact.

But the private sector receycles failure and the cost is to private indivudals, consumers, investors & lenders.

Whereas the public sector abides failure and the cost is suffered by citizens & tax-payers.


And I would never have said that phrase, coming from a family of teachers, I would have been shot!!

Well that's not true at all given the number of bail outs for private companies.

Housing, cars, banking, health, transport, power etc etc all get massive help from the tax payer. Or on the case of health, make a balls of things, pocket the cash and then leave the NHS to tidy it up.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

But the private sector receycles failure and the cost is to private indivudals, consumers, investors & lenders.

Whereas the public sector abides failure and the cost is suffered by citizens & tax-payers.

Who bailed out RBS again?

My main gripe with the UK at the moment is that people (like me) who would like to do Masters are expected to fork out £7,000+ and its so much cheaper elsewhere in Europe to study. Don't know why the government makes post-grad studying so expensive

Minimal return on investment Id guess.

Ent wrote:Minimal return on investment Id guess.

Hence I am not doing one. Still extortionate though

Steffan wrote:My main gripe with the UK at the moment is that people (like me) who would like to do Masters are expected to fork out £7,000+ and its so much cheaper elsewhere in Europe to study. Don't know why the government makes post-grad studying so expensive

Errr, because that's what it costs? In fact, since the hike in fees, the Government haven't allowed any increases, even for inflation. So, in other words, the current fees are loss making. Someone has to pay. Recent Governments ripped ~80% of the central budget out of UK universities and people wonder why fees are what they are now?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The only downside I expect is seeing suicidal types jumping in front of the train...

I imagine there are plenty of West Ham fans that get the tube..

There's zero interaction between tube drivers & users.

And they get huge compo packages if they do hit a jumper, massive amounts of time off work on full pay.

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

But the private sector receycles failure and the cost is to private indivudals, consumers, investors & lenders.

Whereas the public sector abides failure and the cost is suffered by citizens & tax-payers.

Who bailed out RBS again?

Capitalism should have allowed them to fail. However on balance it made more sense to bail them out as this created less loss to the tax-payer.

Also 'bailed out' LBG, but funnily enough nobody bleats on about that anymore given that juicey profit that's been made on the bail out....

Steffan wrote:My main gripe with the UK at the moment is that people (like me) who would like to do Masters are expected to fork out £7,000+ and its so much cheaper elsewhere in Europe to study. Don't know why the government makes post-grad studying so expensive

Go to Europe to study then if it's so much cheaper.

If you're good enough, get a scholarship, if your ambitious enough, get a CDL, if neither then why should my taxes fund your educational whim?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Steffan wrote:My main gripe with the UK at the moment is that people (like me) who would like to do Masters are expected to fork out £7,000+ and its so much cheaper elsewhere in Europe to study. Don't know why the government makes post-grad studying so expensive

Go to Europe to study then if it's so much cheaper.

If you're good enough, get a scholarship, if your ambitious enough, get a CDL, if neither then why should my taxes fund your educational whim

Erm...so once my educational "whim" is over I will be well qualified enough to always get a job and never have to be unemployed therefore being a further burden to you and your taxes on JSA maybe?

I may well indeed take the CDL option. 5-7K for a years education is still a lot though and I'm sure even someone as right wing and unsympathetic to the working class as you can understand that

If para 1 of your response applies, this is covered by my second comment - ergo get a CDL. It's what my mate did for his masters in order to get a good job as a Chartered Surveyor. Our masters was £11k, FYI (I needed a scholarship to fund mine).