Yeah actually…. Why should the taxpayer fund a farmers kid to go to college when they have plenty of assets in the form of land?

Nocturnal Paramedic are you in competition with someone else to see who can post the most stupid comment?

I can see you winning by the way!

Yeah enda that’s exactly what I’m at…. :-/ just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make my comment stupid…
So you think it’s ok for a farmer with hectares of land to get a grant for a their kid to go to college? I don’t think that’s fair when our taxes are being used for these grants instead of the farmer selling an acre or two…

And do what then?

Should a tradesman with thousands of euros worth of tools sell up so a kid can get an education?

Also I don’t know if you have noticed but people aren’t exactlly qeueing up these days to buy property.
This idea has not been thought through at all I think.

More kite flying from the government!

Nocturnal Paramedic: That “kid” is probably 18, and responsible for his own welfare… This is what Ruairi Quinn is forgetting, with his Torythink. Some parents will probably tell their kid to get lost and find a job (where?) to pay for their education. And while I’m not against the principle of working to SUPPLEMENT your income during college, if you’re studying to be an Engineer, spending all your spare time serving chips in MacDonalds is not exactly a worthwhile character building exercise.

Fiachra Maolmordha Ó Raghallaigh why is working in McDonalds not a worthwhile character building exercise for a budding engineer? Engineers are require to engage with the real world to some extent after they qualify. A part time job is good for learning how to deal with career work. I didn’t get a grant during college, I always worked part time, which took away from my study time. Some people really need grants, but the playing field needs to be levelled. Farmer’s children shouldn’t get grants just because their parents are farmers. It’s frustrating when you see cases of students with loads of disposable income and spare time because they get a grant, while you slave away in some rubbish part time job so you can pay for your bus fare to college.

A) I’m not against part time jobs, just the experience of relying on part time employment to finance your entire college education.
B) Engineering and most science degrees are 9-5, so there really isn’t that much time for part-time work.
C) There are a lot of things wrong with the higher education system, but the cutting the eligibility criteria for the grant isn’t going to solve ANY of them.

a) It’s impossible to finance an entire college degree on part time work, wages are too low for that. You can only supplement.
b) After 5pm and weekends is when most part time work happens.
c) The government needs to widen eligibility, but also make sure that the grant is going to those who need it most.

Don’t be ridiculous enda…. You can’t build a house on tools can ya…??? But ya can guarantee most farmers have a nice little site set aside for their off spring… Maybe they should choose between a college education or a cheap house and not have us taxpayers sending them off to college for free. Or maybe get a job and a loan like the rest of us did…

You are like many other posters here, anti farmer, plain and simple.

Anyone with any knowledge of farming or any business would not pursue such a line of argument.

Sorry enda but I’m not anti-farmer at all…. I’m from the country myself and I know plenty of farmers. Nearly all of my friends from a farming background had a site waiting for them… Are you trying to tell me they couldnt of sold that site to put them through college instead of relying on tax funded grants??

I get it now nocturnal. Your jealous that your friends parents have land they don’t have to pay for to build a house on.

A valid point, but not everybody is able to get the grant and still afford luxuries and piss it away in the nightclub.

Yeah, very true — those who actually need it are done a disservice by the clowns that don’t. The current system isn’t fit for purpose, though and rejigging the calculation to include assets won’t solve anything.

If they sold a few acres they wouldn’t need a grant for college….

What’s wrong with suggesting selling land to pay for college? Seems reasonable.

“Sell Up” is hardly a solution either. You might not sell for a start, and if you do its probably going to be a lot less than what its worth. Plus many farmers use the land for farming, or intend to give it to their kids.

@ noctural, that land is what they make there living from. If they sell it then there income dwindles. You understand now?

Reducing income to invest in college is hardly a radical suggestion. Do you understand now?

I agree we have been refused grant for my son because we ‘earn’ too much and yet struggle daily to make ends meet, net income should be used as part of assessment not gross and net value of assets. This would give a fairer picture of need for grant

Most people vote “I dont know” as a way of seeing the results without altering them. I’ve done it a few times. It’s also interesting to see how many people are undecided on an issue.

5 million in property and can’t afford college hmmm sell some land like everyone else has to do..they even got grants to leave land unworked just top it once a year…ah the poor millionaire farmers

@ Vinnie Mulvihill At the end of the day, if they’re getting a grant their household income is below the 50 odd k mark and they need it. Selling land and assets is only going to reduce that income even further as these are the tools that are making farmers’ livings. For a rural student the costs of college are a lot greater. 4-5k accomodation, 2k reg + living expenses. Now imagine if a family has to put 2-3 through college in the space of a few years.

not at all what ends up as income insn the same a farmer can take out loans on more land lowering his income and getting grants

“Sell Up” is hardly a solution either. You might not sell for a start, and if you do its probably going to be a lot less than what its worth. Plus many farmers use the land for farming, or intend to give it to their kids.

I’m not sure why we need to test someones assets, especially farmers. Farmers tend to have a lot of land as its required for their business, but they are hardly minted because they invested in their business. It should be based on income. If you have 7 fields and your earning a lot, then why should you be entitled to a grant if you are making enough to cover both? But what if you have 7 fields and your just tipping over, land isn’t fully in use and so on.

Farming isn’t a cheap business to run folks. Its grand to be sitting on their fence throwing stones and mocking them thinking they have it easy, but its one of the toughest most expensive businesses to run.

The student loans argument is a whole other topic. Many people simply cannot afford them. Income and financial assets are already taken into consideration in the grant application form. Ultimately, this is what is putting food on the table and paying bills. Calculating overall net worth is, in some cases, going to give a completely distorted outlook on a families financial situation. Owning a cattle shed built 20 years ago worth x amount of euro could be the difference between getting a grant or being refused? If the education needs to be cut. I feel its unfair that they target a single group like this (by the way I’m not a farmer). Reducing the grant by 3% for everyone would be a lot less painful than shutting out a group of people entirely. I know they’ve done this before and as a student I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s better than this.

The farmers receive more handouts than anyone on social welfare. It’s called the CAP.

My uncle has a 600 acre farm with 500 or so cattle, 1000 sheep and 40 horses. His three kids all get the full gran for college up in UCD to study B & L

In fairness though it’s not like he has much cash. He only take two holidays abroad a year.

Whatever the outcome, Sociologically the wealthy will still end getting into University and the poor will get screwed.

I vote I don’t know because it is a great idea in some cases and a terrible one in others see my comment below

When SF win the next election, expect these changes to be rolled back.

Adams for Taoiseach 2016.

I hope people reflect on their mistakes of voting Fine Gael in 2011. As a result, you elected a government who will pillage the Irish people. I regularly hear many people ask ‘what’s the alternative’? It’s simple: Sinn Fein / Socialists / Independents.

Electing FG / LAB was a mistake because they lied and failed in their first year of government. Do you keep re-electing a stupid government?

I don’t think that will help as we have to continue making cuts to keep receiving out bailout funding. The solution is to not make easy cuts in education or healthcare. Leaning to the left or the right won’t help either.

These times are hard and we will have to deal with them we have to make hard choices and sacrifices. If that means cutting the level of the extra-ordinarily high dole, taxing the highest of earners or making huge public sector job cuts.

We need to make this county more efficient and streamlined. We have a dream of a knowledge based economy and we will never get there of we keep making the easy choices.

Paddy bebop, I think your figures are a bit iffy, 600 acre would not support 500 cattle, 1000 sheep and 40 horses. but judging by your thumbs up alot of people agree with you and therefore have no clue about farming.

And down on this planet we call it earthn

If they overcommitted themselves, financially, bigger fools them.

SF will roll back these changes if elected.

The welfare class I take it you mean.

Education will be a thing of the past under FG/LAB.

Time to vote them out of office in 2016 and choose an alternative government of Sinn Fein and Independents.

Put FF/FG/Labour and SINN FEIN in the history books, where they belong. Its time for a new constitution and a new Republic, get rid of all the parties of yester-year. Sinn Fein are a shower of two-faced liars!

Land….. But that could be an option too :)

big farmers???I m married to a farmer who works tweleve hr days at least!! for NOTHING he d prob earn more on the dole!!!
you ve have not got a clue typical tarring all farmers with same brush!!!Its a VVVV hard job with v little rewards except a 2 day summer holiday if we r lucky!!!

Stop talking rubbish. Irish farmers have never had it so good. Full time farmers earn on average about 80k a year and pay feck all tax. Their incomes have risen 70% in the last 2 years. Blueshirt farmers always plead poverty while racking it in.

@ aislinn well he might be better selling up and trying a different job if the dole would be better

@ Brendan. Ya that may be true but they have hugh over heads.

Most of them have have huge heads on them anyways

Brendan; The scenario that Aislinn describes is very common. Not every farmer is minted and paying little tax.

Brenden you might want to read this http://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/finance/average-farm-income-24861-but-dont-expect-college-grants-for-your-children-195802.html “Average farm income €24,861 — but don’t expect college grants for your children”

^ that’s an average figure that includes part time farmers who keep a couple of sheep but also work a full time job. Your own link says full time farmers earn close to 60k, twice the average industrial wage. Full time dairy farmers earn about 80k on average.

And again Brendan. You forgot about the hugh expenses that farmers have.

“income of €56,000 would be better explained if broken down per labour unit, because you are likely to see three generations working on most full-time commercial farms. ” That gives and average of less than €20k per person.
You also are not taking into account outstanding loans or inheritance tax in some cases. Our next door neighbor inherited a farm off his uncle which was a mid sized farm but it took years of very hard work to pay off the crippling inheritance tax.

Full time dairy farmers income depends on the size of the farm and the income is normally based on one person working on the farm and doesn’t include spouse and children sharing the division of labor.

That’s an entirely biased link in favour of the whinging farmers. Why should grandad be getting paid 20k a year to feed the chickens once a day while also getting a full pension?

don’t the urban working class just collect social welfare and spend it on cheap beer for centra when child support is received.

@ Vinnie: Don’t be so arrogant as to assume everyone does their job for money. Have you considered than Aislinn’s husband might actually love the work he does?

@ Brendan, you clearly have a chip on your shoulder for some reason, but you’ve ignored Brian when he mentions the costs of farming. These costs are far more expensive than you seem to comprehend. Buying in stock, meal, equipment and a multitude of other things means there’s a big difference between the gross income and the net income. Also self employed people like farmers don’t have the option of going on the dole if it all goes belly up. Yes farm incomes have risen over the past few years, but relative to the hours put in I’d imagine the amount earned per hour is well below the minimum wage.

My parents and brother both work on the farm at home. My parents are a decade from retirement age. What should they do? Go to the workhouse in your esteemed opinion? Come on, do tell – you seem to know it all after all. The job is time intensive and the rewards are far from great – that’s why I chose not to do it, as well as the fact I had other interests. The average €80,000 figure you quote isn’t mentioned in the article that’s linked to at all, so I’d love to know where you get it from? A pie in the sky figure I bet.

exactly ‘seemed’

Yes Shane you are wrong

” if you owe more money than the asset is worth then it stops becoming an asset and becomes a liability”

Completely incorrect sentence. And I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. Your assets (home, savings, car, shares etc.) will always be assets so long as they are worth money to you. If your liabilities exceed your income/assets then that just means you’re broke. Financial assets like savings and shares are taken into consideration already. The debate here is whether a physical thing such as a house could be used as a means of getting your kids through college either by re mortgaging it, moving, or securing it against a smaller loan etc.

Agreed my point was as clear as mud, I was thinking specifically about farmers. What I was trying to say was that if somebody owes more than the value of their farm on a loan which is backed by the asset then this shouldn’t be used. That said, if somebody does own their farm outright then that asset should be used as part of the calculation when means testing.

I feel it should be left out of it. Farmers are already paying plenty of tax, and their students once graduated will also pay back in to the system. I think monitoring income is the best way to determine someone’s standard of living, physical assets can paint a distorted picture of a families financial situation. A farmers land is the tool with which they use to make money, if their income is below the threshold. Then the land they have is not sufficient to live off as it is and they should be getting a student grant. Selling it or securing it against a loan is unfair. If the income is low, they are already struggling.

Agreed farmers already pay a lot of tax and nobody wants to make it harder for them to make a living. But we all pay a lot of tax and I don’t think its fair to ask other people to support a none profitable business. I don’t want to be rude but if people can’t make money out of farming then maybe they shouldn’t be farming.

Thats a great statement. Do you know where your food comes from?