Your question is more complicated that it first appears.

First, there is the question of how much one's education was worth as an education. Some people get better education than others. Towards what end was one's education directed? Maybe one's education was misdirected (mine was -- I should never have planned on being a high school teacher).

The jobs one gets might be the result of incompetent or super savvy job hunting skills. Any job might be hard to find; really interesting jobs are harder to find. Some people have more healthy or less healthy attitudes toward work (mine were exceptionally unhealthy at times).

Expecting a liberal arts degree (English Lit) to line up with non-teaching jobs just wasn't going to end well. The two good jobs I had (for 14 years, total) did utilize all sorts of skills and knowledge, and they were very serendipitous. The rest of the jobs were mostly great steaming piles of shit.

This is a fake poll!

Look at those answers. Where is the answer "Can't say, I'm unemployed with a university degree"?

None of the answers quite match my position, I'd say that I'm happy to be free not to have to rely on a degree, even though I have one. That independence and freedom is something I think is really worth having. So I answered "No. And I like it that way" even though that doesn't say much...

Look at those answers. Where is the answer "Can't say, I'm unemployed with a university degree"? — Agustino

Also, "No. And I don't care". The "Don't care" answer seems to me suggest that I don't care to answer the question.

Also, "No. And I don't care". The "Don't care" answer seems to me suggest that I don't care to answer the question. — Michael

Yes, the poll is biased quite heavily towards people who are helped by their degrees, in my opinion. Also the question "does your current job utilise your education?" assumes (without saying) that education is only what you learn in school/college/university. But that's just simply a false assumption. Of course my work - for example - utilises education - and big time. But it's not the education I received in school. Heister seems to have built a Crooked and Lyin' Poll! >:O

To be honest - I don't see much how a degree can help. It's just a reputation thing - reputation just decides on how much effort you need to put in to get a job in the first place - but once you get a job, that becomes your reputation, and the degree is completely irrelevant. If you have the skills in a certain industry - unless that's something like medicine - you'll be able to get hired even without a degree, provided you have a little bit of salesmanship in you.

The issue with many people is that they get a degree, but truth be told, you don't actually learn much practical and valuable skills in University - even if you do a technical degree. But they brainwash you to think you have. So when you go to a job, you expect to be able to do lots of things, but the rude awakening is when you find out that you're mostly incapable to do anything of real value (how frustrating - you spent 4-5 years, and you're still not a professional...). That's what I found as an engineer. So the company effectively has to train you - invest time in you - and that costs money. So they'll likely train you to become specialised in one small area - invest just a little time in you to make you productive - and that's it. Your skills will not grow at all UNLESS you yourself put in extra effort, above and beyond work to learn and better yourself.

I know people for example who have been working in IT at multinational corps. for well over 10-15 years, and many of them have weaker programming skills than someone self-taught like me over the past ~1-2 years. In fact, the person I'm talking about recently requested that I give them tutorials to learn JS. How is that possible? Because they do lots of paperwork, and the same repetitive tasks day in and day out - when they don't know something they just ask a colleague, or give it over to someone else to do. Working as an employee (esp. in large companies) is 90% politics, and 10% work. It all ends up about office politics - kinda like school - whose the most popular, whose the coolest, who socialises the most, who goes to the best holidays, who goes drinking with the manager etc. But very little focus on who gets the job done. And it kills your creativity and problem solving skills.

When I have a problem for example, I am always forced to find out by myself how to solve it, there's no support network around. So you learn how to search, who to contact, how to get the answers you need from people, how to leverage your connections, etc. Whereas in a job where everything is given to you on a platter, you don't really learn much.

I mean all that is fine if you just want to pay your bills, but if you want sufficient freedom to use your time to help others, and actually do something for the world, those degree requiring corporate jobs aren't going to do you much good. Your best bet is still to study and work at home, by yourself, to learn something different while working your day job.

In my opinion, the economy should be based on small producers - entrepreneurship. Large, dominating entities should be discouraged. The intention of the economy is to give people the greatest amount of freedom - so work which ties one into imbecile rituals, and keeps them a wage slave is ultimately contradictory to the aims of a humane economy.

Yes, but barely. Basic maths, for example. It's useful when doing things with numbers in the form of money, prices, and units of measurement.

Yes, but barely. Basic maths, for example. — Sapientia

The question is mistaken - Heister is referring to university/college education - at least that's what our discussion in the other thread was about. I hope you didn't wait until college to learn basic maths :P

Then he should have been clearer. The wording in the opening post and poll question is not that specific. And I haven't read the other discussion.

I never went to college or university, and I have no intention of going.

I never went to college or university, and I have no intention of going. — Sapientia

Yeah, I definitely think it's not worth the money. If I knew what I know today, and I had sufficient confidence back then to refuse the peer-pressure, I wouldn't go either.

You spend roughly ~£60,000 (with all costs, including accommodation, food, travel, etc. for 4 years), and are stuck with debt afterwards (and much more for US, or if you are international in UK obviously). From a meagre paying wage job it will take you ~6-8 years to pay that back (factoring living costs, etc.), and the skills you gain (apart from the piece of paper) are really not much. I think you're far better off learning something valuable by yourself while working a job - any job pretty much - that pays your bills, and lets you save some.

Yeah, I definitely think it's not worth the money. If I knew what I know today, and I had sufficient confidence back then to refuse the peer-pressure, I wouldn't go either.

You spend roughly ~£60,000 (with all costs, including accommodation, food, travel, etc. for 4 years), and are stuck with debt afterwards (and much more for US, or if you are international in UK obviously). From a meagre paying wage job it will take you ~6-8 years to pay that back (factoring living costs, etc.), and the skills you gain (apart from the piece of paper) are really not much. I think you're far better off learning something valuable by yourself while working a job - any job pretty much - that pays your bills. — Agustino

Whether or not one obtains useful skills in a university education (which probably greatly varies by major: engineering or accounting majors on average probably obtain more job-specific skills than those majoring in ethnic studies or Renaissance poetry), there is the pragmatic consideration that a lack of a university degree is a barrier to entry for many jobs.

Many employers want that "piece of paper," and lacking it will preclude one from even getting one's foot in the door for an interview. University graduates (at least in the U.S.; I haven't seen the data for the U.K.) earn substantially more over their working lifetimes than do non-university graduates.

Yeah, I definitely think it's not worth the money. If I knew what I know today, and I had sufficient confidence back then to refuse the peer-pressure, I wouldn't go either.

You spend roughly ~£60,000 (with all costs, including accommodation, food, travel, etc. for 4 years), and are stuck with debt afterwards (and much more for US, or if you are international in UK obviously). From a meagre paying wage job it will take you ~6-8 years to pay that back (factoring living costs, etc.), and the skills you gain (apart from the piece of paper) are really not much. I think you're far better off learning something valuable by yourself while working a job - any job pretty much - that pays your bills, and lets you save some. — Agustino

Well, I'm with Labour who've pledged to abolish university tuition fees. But whether or not it's really worth it, as things currently stand, is a personal thing, in my view, and differs from one case to another, so I wouldn't make the blanket statement that it's definitely not worth it.

which probably greatly varies by major: engineering or accounting majors on average probably obtain more job-specific skills than those majoring in ethnic studies or Renaissance poetry — Arkady

I hold an engineering degree. Learned almost 0 useful material. You go on a construction site afterwards, and don't understand anything. That's disgusting preparation, especially for someone who holds an Honours degree. It's all theory - but life is very different from theory. Academics like theory, because it's static, and it's easy to teach and control theory. It's much harder to teach real world.

Employers want that "piece of paper," — Arkady

Depends who the "employers" are. Large(r) companies want it not because they need it, but it's a way for the person in charge of hiring to guard his behind if you end up being a bad hire. He can then say to his managers - "oh well, I did my best, look at his education here, he seemed to have been the perfect candidate!". It's all about politics, not doing what's best for the business.

But, say someone came to be employed by me (a small company/employer) - I'd only have one real question, apart from getting to know their personality - can you get whatever job I'm hiring for done well? If you can, let's see it, and I'd give them a real world test right away. If they perform well, that's all I care about. I don't give a toss about their degree, because I've seen too many idiots with degrees. And there's many like me, especially smaller companies. Smaller companies care about results - politics, reputation, and bullshit aren't relevant.

I wouldn't make the blanket statement that it's definitely not worth it. — Sapientia

I agree, but the careers for which it is worth it aren't many (doctors come to mind).

Well, I'm with Labour who've pledged to abolish university tuition fees. — Sapientia

That's a terrible idea. Do you imagine how many people will start going to university if tuition fees are abolished? Where will that money come from? Remember the costs are ~£9,000/student/year and at the moment, with the current tuition fees, there are 500,000 UK only students attending. That's £4.5 BILLION/year. And the number of students who attend will increase significantly if tuition is made 0. Say doubling (universities are smart - they will market, to get funds from the state, that's free and easy money, just for attracting more students). Are you prepared to pay £9 BILLION every year for free education out of your own tax money?

Also, please note that one reason why the quality of University has degraded so much is that University is no longer "elitist" -> there's too many students.

Depends who the "employers" are. Large(r) companies want it not because they need it, but it's a way for the person in charge of hiring to guard his behind if you end up being a bad hire. He can then say to his managers - "oh well, I did my best, look at his education here, he seemed to have been the perfect candidate!". It's all about politics, not doing what's best for the business. — Agustino

I amended my above post to say "many employers," because certainly, university degrees are not necessary for every job (luckily, since most Americans don't hold them). There are obviously many, many jobs which don't require such degrees, from minimum-wage, unskilled work (e.g. fast food worker) to skilled work which may command a decent living (e.g. finish carpenter).

However, beyond the "politics" aspect, a university degree also sends a sort of honest signal to an employer, i.e. that this applicant was qualified to gain admittance into a university, was intelligent and disciplined enough to complete the course work, etc. Unfortunately, as the value of degrees becomes debased by things like affirmative action or legacy admissions, grade inflation, or lowered standards for academic coursework, this signal likely communicate less useful information to employers.

But, say someone came to be employed by me (a small company/employer) - I'd only have one real question, apart from getting to know their personality - can you get whatever job I'm hiring for done well? If you can, let's see it, and I'd give them a real world test right away. If they perform well, that's all I care about. I don't give a toss about their degree, because I've seen too many idiots with degrees. And there's many like me, especially smaller companies. Smaller companies care about results - politics, reputation, and bullshit aren't relevant.

Yes, once a person has some work experience under their belt, a degree (or lack thereof) becomes less relevant, as one's work experience becomes more salient. Younger people or more recent grads don't have this benefit, however.

None of this changes, however, that holders of a university degree earn substantially more over their lifetimes than those who don't hold such a degree (again, at least in the U.S.)

None of this changes, however, that holders of a university degree earn substantially more over their lifetimes than those who don't hold such a degree (again, at least in the U.S.) — Arkady

That "substantially" doesn't mean much. It's the difference between $20K and $60-80K/yr (and even with a degree it takes 10s of years to reach that level) with the stipulation that people who earn bigger salaries are often required to travel more, attend more expensive events, live in more expensive places (close to the job), etc. In real cash flow terms, it doesn't end up being a big difference. They live at slightly higher standards of living, but because their bigger wage implies bigger costs, they are still a few pay-checks from starvation.

However, beyond the "politics" aspect, a university degree also sends a sort of honest signal to an employer, i.e. that this applicant was qualified to gain admittance into a university, was intelligent and disciplined enough to complete the course work, etc. — Arkady

Well I, for example, wouldn't look at that as a plus necessarily. It's not that hard to gain admittance to even great universities if that's your only goal in today's age. I know some people who graduated from top universities who are utter idiots. Their degree doesn't change that. As for "completing the course work" => most people cheat, even on that. It's amazing how much cheating is going on in Universities. Back when I attended, I never cheated, but I know many people who have, including paying to get others to do their course works.

Unfortunately, as the value of degrees becomes debased by things like affirmative action or legacy admissions, grade inflation, or lowered standards for academic coursework, this signal likely communicate less useful information to employers. — Arkady

I agree - degrees aren't what they used to be.

It will be paid for by increasing corporation tax and income tax for people earning over £80,000. So that wouldn't be coming out of my tax money, and if it was, I would be okay with that, as I'd be happy enough to be on a salary of £80,000 or more. I'd have a lot more left over after tax than what I currently make. And it would also mean that people coming out of university wouldn't have to face debts of up to £44,000 - a "gut-wrenching" sum which "hangs over them" for years to come, to paraphrase Labour's Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner.

One estimate I've seen is that £19.4bn can be raised from the increase to corporation tax alone.

You spend roughly ~£60,000 (with all costs, including accommodation, food, travel, etc. for 4 years), and are stuck with debt afterwards (and much more for US, or if you are international in UK obviously). From a meagre paying wage job it will take you ~6-8 years to pay that back (factoring living costs, etc.), and the skills you gain (apart from the piece of paper) are really not much. — Agustino

I spent ~£27,000 for a three year course. That was back when tuition was £3,000 a year (plus £6,000 maintenance).

And 6-8 years? You must be joking. The repayment is 9% of any income over £17,775 a year. If you're earning £18,000 then not including interest it'd take more than 3,000 years to pay back £60,000 (although they're written off after 25/30 years).

It will be paid for by increasing corporation tax and income tax for people earning over £80,000. So that wouldn't be coming out of my tax money, and if it was, I would be okay with that, as I'd be happy enough to be on a salary of £80,000 or more. — Sapientia

I think that's the key point. The rich (or some of them, rather) complain about having to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, but given that almost everyone would prefer to earn £150,001 and pay 45% tax than earn £11,500 and pay no tax, it's hard to empathise.

You can argue that it isn't fair, but in this situation the less fair option is the better option.

It will be paid for by increasing corporation tax and income tax for people earning over £80,000. So that wouldn't be coming out of my tax money, and if it was, I would be okay with that, as I'd be happy enough to be on a salary of £80,000 or more. I'd have a lot more left over after tax than what I currently make. — Sapientia

If you had a £80,000 salary, your costs would be significantly higher (and it wouldn't really be up to you). First of all, your job would very likely entail a lot more traveling than your current job does (that means expenses - thousands of pounds per year). Second of all, you'd be working in a central place (financial district of London for example) so in order to be efficient you'd need to live in a more expensive place. In order to create a good impression you'll also need expensive clothing (probably required by your employer), as well as attend dinners/lunches at expensive places. And so forth.

Granting how expensive the UK can be, ~£80,000/yr (roughly 7K/month) isn't even that much (anywhere in Eastern Europe though - if you make 7K/month you're probably a big bank director >:O ) That's why I've told you before it's the cash flow that matters. Someone making ~80K as an employee in the UK ain't rich. When you get to £200,000/year and up, then you're talking about starting to get rich. The fact is that these 80K/yr people struggle to make ends meet, are highly stressed, and making them pay 9 billion in educational costs makes no sense - they just cannot pay, they don't have the cash flow necessary. These people typically wake up at 50 completely burned out, with no hopes left in life.

I spent ~£27,000. That was back when tuition was £3,000 a year (plus £6,000 maintenance). — Michael

Yeah, that commutes to ~£60,000 with the current tuition of £9,000 (9K*4+6K*4). As for the years I cited best case scenarios (starting with a very good job at £25,000-£28,000, and growing). My point is even 6-8 years is terrible for the value you get out of it.

The rich (or some of them, rathe) complain about a having to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, but given that almost everyone would prefer to earn £80,000 and pay 50% tax than earn £20,000 and pay no tax, it's hard to empathise. — Michael

The government doesn't reward the rich well enough. If I'm a billionaire, I have no problem paying for education a large amount of money. But that means I should have disproportionate rights in absolutely controlling how that education gets implemented (afterall, it's my money!). Not some dumb politician to take my money and do stupid things with it. I should have control over what happens to that money. If that happened, then rich people, at least many of them, would be interested to pay their fair shares of taxes. But at the moment, there's no benefits to paying your taxes. You're better off taking that money away to a fiscal paradise.

I don't know about you guys, but I would want my doctor to have a medical degree.

The fact is that these 80K/yr people struggle to make ends meet... — Agustino

I find that hard to believe.

And my original point still stands; these people prefer to have this £80,000 a year job with its higher tax than the £12,000 a year job with its lower tax, so even though it might not be fair, it's still the better option. So this "disproportionate amount of tax" defence doesn't seem to be very well thought out.

Yeah, that commutes to ~£60,000 with the current tuition of £9,000. As for the years I cited best case scenarios (starting with a very good job at £25,000-£28,000, and growing). My point is even 6-8 years is terrible for the value you get out of it.

Well, you actually said "from a meagre paying wage job", but even then, if you're earning £28,000 then it'd take 65 years to pay back £60,000 (not including interest), as it's 9% of income over £17,775, so £920.25 a year.

The government doesn't reward the rich well enough.

I don't think it's the government's job to reward people. Its job is to provide necessary services to the country, which at the very minimum is keeping everyone alive, healthy, and safe.

I have no problem paying for education a large amount of money. But that means I should have disproportionate rights in absolutely controlling how that education gets implemented (afterall, it's my money!). Not some dumb politician to take my money and do stupid things with it. I should have control over what happens to that money.

That's not how democracies work. Or are you suggesting that oligarchies are a fairer form of governance?

But at the moment, there's no benefits to paying your taxes.

You mean aside from the armed forces, the police, a judiciary system, the fire service, the ambulance service, hospitals, a central bank, waste removal, roads, etc.? Of course, you can push to privatise everything, but given that private companies are primarily interested in making a profit, you'll likely end up paying more than you currently pay in taxes.

(Not to mention that private police services and militaries is a recipe for disaster).

You're better off taking that money away to a fiscal paradise.

I don't think anybody is holding you hostage to your home country. You're free to move to the Cayman Islands if you like.

The fact is that these 80K/yr people struggle to make ends meet... — Agustino

>:O

Pffft, I'm like Marvin from Hickhiker's guide.

That makes you feel safer (emotionally), but it doesn't necessarily commute rationally. I have quite a decent medical knowledge (of course nothing like a professional - but I could go head to head with a 2nd year medicine student, and some conditions/diseases I understand really well), and many doctors I've been to were disappointing in their "knowledge" and advice. Some of the advice I got actually harmed me. It's a fine line knowing when to listen to a doctor and when to ignore his advice - it's easy to go the wrong way in both cases.

Over time, I've shifted to doctors who listen to me and do as I say, and away from the very stubborn ones who insist on their way regardless of what I say. This year, for example, I avoided a surgery by finding a doctor who did as I told him. I also got a foot infection though from ignoring a doctor's advice - so it can go both ways. Health is a very complicated subject - best not to get ill, and if you do, use your own brain to help you decide and judge doctors and their advice.

And my original point still stands; these people prefer to have this £80,000 a year job with its higher tax than the £12,000 a year job with its lower tax, so even though it might not be fair, it's still the better option. — Michael

Depends. Is the better option to have higher social status (that's mostly what that job is) and join the insane asylum when you're 50 because of too much stress?

Well, you actually said "from a meagre paying wage job", but even then, if you're earning £28,000 then it'd take 65 years to pay back £60,000 (not including interest), as it's 9% of income over £17,775, so £920.25 a year. — Michael

Right. Yes you are correct, I just tried it. I have no idea what error I did when I calculated the first time. Either way, I've just assumed they had to pay £36,000 (just tuition fees) in loan repayments and they'd make up the remaining 6K/year working part-time or over the summers.

I don't think it's the government's job to reward people. Its job is to provide necessary services to the country, which at the very minimum is keeping everyone alive, healthy, and safe. — Michael

Right, but it shouldn't be the gov's job to punish people who haven't done anything illegal.

That's not how democracies work. Or are you suggesting that oligarchies are a fairer form of governance? — Michael

No, I'm saying that people who provide disproportionately - for whatever reason - should have greater decision power in the changes that are going to be made.

You mean aside from the armed forces, the police, a judiciary system, the fire service, the ambulance service, hospitals, a central bank, waste removal, roads, etc.? — Michael

Sure but many rich people wouldn't rely on many of the public services anyway - say ambulances, hospitals, waste removal from the list you've provided.

(Not to mention that private police services and militaries is a recipe for disaster). — Michael

I agree, obviously.

I don't think anybody is holding you hostage to your home country. You're free to move to the Cayman Islands if you like. — Michael

Yes, but when you do this, your country suffers significantly because they lose all potential taxes from you (apart from stuff that's unavoidable such as all the taxes involved with salaries/employment). They may as well settle on mutually favorable terms, then at least they get some of the taxes.

No, I'm saying that people who provide disproportionately - for whatever reason - should have greater decision power in the changes that are going to be made. — Agustino

So, what, the more tax you pay the more votes you get? That's not a democracy; it's an oligarchy. And if all the power rests with a small number of the most wealthy then you end up with something like Russia. Is that really the sort of society you want to live in?

Right, but it shouldn't be the gov's job to punish people who haven't done anything illegal.

Paying tax isn't a punishment. It's a necessity.

Sure but many rich people wouldn't rely on many of the public services anyway - say ambulances, hospitals, waste removal from the list you've provided.

The rich don't get sick or suffer injuries? They don't have bins in their houses that need to be emptied? They don't drive anywhere? They don't require an army to protect them from foreign invasion? Or a police force to protect them from would-be burglars? Or an independent judiciary to ensure that business contracts and the like are honoured? Their properties never catch fire?

This is just ridiculous. Of course they benefit from public services. They likely wouldn't have any money at all without them.

Yes, but when you do this, your country suffers significantly because they lose all potential taxes from you (apart from stuff that's unavoidable such as all the taxes involved with salaries/employment). They may as well settle on mutually favorable terms, then at least they get some of the taxes.

That's already the case. Obviously the current tax rate isn't severe enough to warrant the rich leaving en masse. They still live and work in the US or the UK or France or wherever. So I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

Paying tax isn't a punishment. It's a necessity. — Michael

Paying a higher tax than everyone else is a punishment.

So, what, the more tax you pay the more votes you get? That's not a democracy; it's an oligarchy. And if all the power rests with a small number of the most wealthy then you end up with something like Russia. Is that really the sort of society you want to live in? — Michael

No, but neither do I want to live in a society where foolish good for nothings that we currently call politicians call the shots.

The rich don't get sick or suffer injuries? — Michael

Private health care.

They don't have bins in their houses that need to be emptied? — Michael

They also do that privately, largely. Part of estate management.

They don't drive anywhere? They don't require an army to protect them from foreign invasion? — Michael

Yes, they do require this.

Or a police force to protect them from would-be burglars? — Michael

Private security.

Or an independent judiciary to ensure that business contracts and the like are honoured? Their properties never catch fire? — Michael

Yes, they do require these.

They still live and work in the US or the UK or France or wherever. So I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here. — Michael

Yes they work there, but many don't pay their taxes there.

No, I don't think you are. Is it the university's fault that you got an education just to be a construction worker? — Heister Eggcart

:s A civil engineer isn't a construction worker mate...

Again, you're trying to pigeon-hole your failed education experience into a macro problem for everyone, which is dubious thinking. In fact, I'm going to start a thread about this topic, since none of this has anything to do with Question's OP. — Heister Eggcart

I'm probably one of the best educated people on the planet actually in terms of schooling. I was always the very top of the class, in both school (I was valedictorian) and university (apart from first year when I almost failed). So I doubt your statements are anything but blind attempts at trying to rationalise things.

My complaints don't stem from "my" failed education. My complaints stem for the fact that education just isn't helpful - despite me receiving some of the best education out there, I was still incapable to do useful work for others. It failed - miserably. And no, not because it didn't get me a job. It did get me a job, but I soon realised that in a job you are like a slave for the most part - at the mercy of others, since you simply haven't been adequately trained to provide real value to people. There's very little creativity, freedom to choose when you work, how you come dressed to work, etc. And I don't like that. So I absolutely didn't choose to quit engineering because of necessity - it's not because I wasn't making enough money.

I don't know how you got your job, or any job you've had in the past. If you're gonna hipfire how simple everything is, don't be so bummed when someone like me slams you with equally dismissive replies. — Heister Eggcart

As an engineer by applying for it (with my degree, obviously). As an independent? By creating my job.

Credit enough not to land me a decent job, yeah. I'd be pretty well off if I could only tap into my Americaness, and my whiteness, and my maleness, and my <insert any other supposed privilege> — Heister Eggcart

That's not the point. The point is that you have so many advantages which you're throwing away.

systems in place that are supposed to ensure such success — Heister Eggcart

Ehmmmm no. The system isn't supposed to ensure your success at all. You seem to have a very communistic mentality. That's how it was back in the day - eh - the fuckin state took care of ya! Let's take you and send you to North Korea shall we? You may like it there, they guarantee you a place to work in the field you studied! ;)

Again, "just go start your own business, hur dur" is equivalent to the person who laughs at my unemployment and just says, "lul, you have a degree that can't land you a job? Stop complaining, there are so many jobs out there! Like, you could flip burgers at McTrump's!" — Heister Eggcart

It's nothing but your arrogance and inflamed sense of self worth that makes you think degradingly of working at McD's.

Okay, Joel Osteen. I'm sure you'll want a tithe before you share your secret expertise, amirite? — Heister Eggcart

Just like losing weight, making money doesn't involve secrets. Just hard work.

If I train myself to be a doctor and cannot be a doctor, for whatever the reasons, then I'm not making that work — Heister Eggcart

Supposing that the world doesn't need anymore doctors (there's too many) why the fuck would you become a doctor? It's your fault for going into something that the world doesn't need anymore. You keep throwing the blame, but it's not anyone's fault.

the position where I have to be a slut and sell myself to any career path that enables immediate money, however much that may be. — Heister Eggcart

No, I never suggested you accept to prostitute yourself, or sell drugs, or stuff like that. So I'm not telling you to be a slut at all - I'm telling you to do something that is useful and helpful for others (and obviously legal) - as far as I see, I'm telling you to stop being a selfish bastard (I want I want) and start being an unselfish and upstanding man (what can I give to the world?).

the reason that there are specialized fields to begin with is to make available for those that would want it a career path that is narrowed and focused on a niche — Heister Eggcart

No, actually the reason there are specialised fields is that there's a need for all those fields in the world. They fulfil a whole different array of human needs, that would otherwise go unmet. They definitely don't exist in order to ensure selfish people get the career path they want. Otherwise we'd have career paths of watching TV out there for sure...

If one gets training in field x, they worked in field x. That's it. No reworking, no retooling, no, "lawl, just find something else to do, hehe XD". To NOT place someone in the field that they have experience in would have been seen as complete and utter madness. — Heister Eggcart

No, that's not quite true. People did whatever was necessary and needed to do. A soldier wasn't going to be a soldier his whole life.

It merely means that that safety net needs to be worked on, not for people to treat those who are trying to go after specific careers they'd like to work in as being lazy, unreasonable asswagons. — Heister Eggcart

The world doesn't give a damn what you want. The world has its own needs, and it will go on with them, whether you like it or not. However, if you ignore the needs of the world, don't be surprised when you find yourself unrewarded for your work.

I have quite a decent medical knowledge (of course nothing like a professional - but I could go head to head with a 2nd year medicine student, and some conditions/diseases I understand really well), and many doctors I've been to were disappointing in their "knowledge" and advice. — Agustino

I'm sure you could, but an education is years of training and the application of this training vastly differentiates with knowledge of a given subject, which is why tertiary studies can be rendered useless if one does not actually work in the given field.

A degree does not undermine a person who may not have one neither is it necessary pending the career or professional objectives. I know many highly intelligent and creative people without a formal education; I am trying to learn the piano and have found it incredibly difficult, so when I listen to a musician play, I am always gobsmacked at the intelligence required to become one. Many intelligent people are lost in the economics as is already pointed out as much as there are many without degrees that know more about a subject I have studied and put me in my place.

A degree is not relevant to a person' character traits and abilities, but it is still useful if you seek knowledge of a particular profession.

Right, but it shouldn't be the gov's job to punish people who haven't done anything illegal. — Agustino

But it's not punishment, it's a fairer method of being able to implement a policy which will be a benefit to society. The greater the wealth, the greater the contribution.

No, I'm saying that people who provide disproportionately - for whatever reason - should have greater decision power in the changes that are going to be made. — Agustino

No, that's a terrible idea. That would be elitist. Decisions should be made in the interest of those who will be effected by them, not in the interest of a privileged class at the expense of the less well off.

Sure, but many rich people wouldn't rely on many of the public services anyway - say ambulances, hospitals, waste removal from the list you've provided. — Agustino

So? These things are obviously of great benefit to society as a whole, and they're essential for most. The needs of the many outweigh the interests of a privileged minority who don't have to rely upon these vital public services.

Yes, but when you do this, your country suffers significantly because they lose all potential taxes from you (apart from stuff that's unavoidable such as all the taxes involved with salaries/employment). They may as well settle on mutually favorable terms, then at least they get some of the taxes. — Agustino

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. We've had higher taxes in the past, and we were still raking it in then as we are now. Yes, there will probably be some who will take their wealth elsewhere, but there won't be a mass exodus, and we can manage without them. The way we're currently headed is a race to the bottom, which will only benefit those at the top at the expense of the rest of society. This wealth doesn't trickle down to those who need it most.

Paying a higher tax than everyone else is a punishment. — Agustino

No, it isn't, it's called fairness. What possible alternative are you suggesting? Equal tax for all, regardless of income, assets, status, and so on?
Scrapping the tiered system of taxation would be incredibly unfair and political suicide. There'd definitely be large-scale riots.