Sir, – AC Hanna (October 20th) commends our marching students on their altruism. Perhaps a different definition of altruism is in use. It appears to me that asking 100 per cent of the people to pay for a 100 per cent of the costs of a privilege afforded to 40 per cent, when those 40 per cent achieve an earnings premium of 60 per cent over their working lives, is not entirely equitable.
In contrast, an income-contingent loan system (the hyphenated words, as per Cassells report, being extremely important but conveniently left out of much of the public discourse) recognises the role of the State in paying part of the cost, but also imposes some of the cost on those who satisfy two criteria – they have received the benefit, and they can afford to pay.
An income-contingent loan system in fact, in the words of the architect of the Australian system, Bruce Chapman, provides insurance for those times and situations in life where a graduate is not earning above a specified threshold. In Australia, this is set as the average Australian wage. Those who cannot pay due to an unemployment, volunteering, taking time out for family, etc, have their debt frozen (in real terms) until and if they are in a position to make repayments.
As a resident of a city where a stroll down the canal takes me from a postcode where 16 per cent of school-leavers go to college to one where 99 per cent do so, I think it fairer that the winners of the third-level postal lottery are asked to contribute towards the cost of their ticket when it turns out to be a winning one. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN KELLY,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.