It doesn't bother anyone that these students so privileged to be at the university are protesting not being subsidized no matter what their circumstances, and how able their parents are to not put a further burden on the taxpayers? I find this group to be the paradigm of the underserving, un-poor. Our milages just differ, and on this one I feel strongly, and have since well, I was in college. The irony of course, is that the vast majority of the taxpayers paying for this, are in circumstances below those of these kids, or what their circumstances will be. It's Robin Hood in reverse. It fosters inequality, rather than mitigate it. Help the kids that need it, and only the kids that need it.
I think I also responded to the j'accuse above, so I will leave it at that.
We had the same bullsh**t reasoning here recently, alongside the laughable "why should others pay for you education?" from politicians all from an earlier generation who all had free university. The idea that the working class would do better in a society where university wasn't free is plainly ridiculous. You'd just have a situation where kids with rich daddies will be the only ones going, alongside a few token poor via philanthropy. Those poor that you're disingenuously concerned for would get nowhere near. Then we can look forward to our public services having to import workers, and our economy be doomed to skills shortages. If there's inequality - and there is - and a concern that the average student is better off than average worker (and I know that here that assumption's came crumbling down) then higher taxation would be the logical route to solve that, with those students paying for the next generations, and if they're well-off then they'll reach the higher-rate tax band and be taxed accordingly.
