Why isnt college free in the US and the UK?

[Guy]

Why isnt college free in the US and the UK?

 

[CharlotteLace]

Realistically speaking, right now the government can't fully handle covering all the costs of running colleges without additional income coming from students.

Would it be able to if we increased taxes? Maybe, depending on the tax hike. Still technically wouldn't be free, the cost would just be spread among the masses a bit more.

A better question is "why isn't college affordable without taking out massive loans?" The rate of tuition inflation versus normal inflation is shown here:

Notice how it started to get a bit steeper in the 90s? As student loans became more popular and attainable, colleges hiked their rates. Student loans were covering costs, so why not, right?

If we brought the cost of attending college down to a reasonable rate (similar to the normal inflation rate), maybe penalized schools for unrealistic charges ($300 for a "necessary" textbook you can resell for $10?), and maybe encouraged a moderate tax hike to help cover college costs, it could happen. But I don't see any of those things likely happening soon. Taxpayers want to keep their money (understandable), and colleges want to keep gouging kids (less understandable).

Frankly I wouldn't have cared about free college if the option of affordable college was on the table when I went. I get that a lot of people don't feel we should pay for somebody's adult education on their dime, and that's fine. If we could just get colleges to be reasonable about education costs and prioritize expenses (academics over sports, for example), then that would be a much better system than what's currently in place.

 

[Guy]

Realistically speaking, right now the government can't fully handle covering all the costs of running colleges without additional income coming from students.

Would it be able to if we increased taxes? Maybe, depending on the tax hike. Still technically wouldn't be free, the cost would just be spread among the masses a bit more.

A better question is "why isn't college affordable without taking out massive loans?" The rate of tuition inflation versus normal inflation is shown here:

Notice how it started to get a bit steeper in the 90s? As student loans became more popular and attainable, colleges hiked their rates. Student loans were covering costs, so why not, right?

If we brought the cost of attending college down to a reasonable rate (similar to the normal inflation rate), maybe penalized schools for unrealistic charges ($300 for a "necessary" textbook you can resell for $10?), and maybe encouraged a moderate tax hike to help cover college costs, it could happen. But I don't see any of those things likely happening soon. Taxpayers want to keep their money (understandable), and colleges want to keep gouging kids (less understandable).

Frankly I wouldn't have cared about free college if the option of affordable college was on the table when I went. I get that a lot of people don't feel we should pay for somebody's adult education on their dime, and that's fine. If we could just get colleges to be reasonable about education costs and prioritize expenses (academics over sports, for example), then that would be a much better system than what's currently in place.

Could be because of lobbyists/ interest groups in our government.
Rich people not wanting to pay higher taxes, loan companies, or corporations wanting people to be less educated.

 

[CharlotteLace]

Could be because of lobbyists/ interest groups in our government.
Rich people not wanting to pay higher taxes, loan companies, or corporations wanting people to be less educated.

Could be, but it's really pretty straightforward. Colleges make money through education. If it's possible for them to make more money, why not? Is it kind of shitty? Yeah, I think so. Especially when it's so ingrained in us that "omg you need a college degree or you'll be a failure and probably die of shame." Those interest rates we pay are also part of it. Even if they're usually low, interest is interest, and that's how loan companies do well. (Though I truly feel it's more an issue with the education system than the loan companies.)

I don't blame rich people for not wanting to pay higher taxes. Nobody likes higher taxes, and there's always a debate about what constitutes necessary costs/tax hikes. Especially when earlier generations didn't have to face the whole "crippling debt at 18 or minimum wage jobs for life?" situation a lot of younger generations have, it's hard for them to feel empathy for kids they see as entitled whiners. "Back in my day we WORKED to pay our way through college!" kind of situation.

I don't really think there's some big conspiracy about corporations wanting people to be dumb/less educated. Having a large pool of applicants with degrees would mean they have a better chance of paying less to the one they hire ("there's 300 other people who'd kill to have this salary, Mr.Jones. And they have the qualifications, too.").

 

[Guy]

Could be, but it's really pretty straightforward. Colleges make money through education. If it's possible for them to make more money, why not? Is it kind of shitty? Yeah, I think so. Especially when it's so ingrained in us that "omg you need a college degree or you'll be a failure and probably die of shame." Those interest rates we pay are also part of it. Even if they're usually low, interest is interest, and that's how loan companies do well. (Though I truly feel it's more an issue with the education system than the loan companies.)

I don't blame rich people for not wanting to pay higher taxes. Nobody likes higher taxes, and there's always a debate about what constitutes necessary costs/tax hikes. Especially when earlier generations didn't have to face the whole "crippling debt at 18 or minimum wage jobs for life?" situation a lot of younger generations have, it's hard for them to feel empathy for kids they see as entitled whiners. "Back in my day we WORKED to pay our way through college!" kind of situation.

I don't really think there's some big conspiracy about corporations wanting people to be dumb/less educated. Having a large pool of applicants with degrees would mean they have a better chance of paying less to the one they hire ("there's 300 other people who'd kill to have this salary, Mr.Jones. And they have the qualifications, too.").

Rich people don't want higher taxes because they are greedy.
I don't think its unfair at all for a millionaire or billionaire to be taxed a higher percentage than lower income or middle income people.

 

[JickyJuly]

Community college should be taxpayer funded or FAFSA should be reworked so that kids whose parents make money but don't or can't invest in their future don't get screwed. Or college alternatives (technical schools, entrepreneurship) should be pushed along with college. Making education more attainable would fix so many problems in America. People who can afford to feed their families are less likely to damage the world around them.

 

[mynameisbob84]

College is free in the UK. We just have to pay for University. It's fairly expensive (I finished my degree almost two years ago now and it was about three grand a year, though I think it might have gone up now). The loans are/were pretty reasonable though. You don't start paying anything back until you're earning over 15k a year, and there are optional maintenance loans of 6k spread across the three years of your course (assuming it's a bachelors degree) and the government gives you an extra grand a year in bursaries that you never have to pay back.

 

[AerynShade]

Because we're too busy paying for stupid fucking wars. And being gatekeepers on who gets benefits and who deserves to go homeless/hungry/sick.

 

[ThePrincessLuxy]

Could be because of lobbyists/ interest groups in our government.
Rich people not wanting to pay higher taxes, loan companies, or corporations wanting people to be less educated.

The last reason doesn't make sense. Corporations want people to be educated because that means more qualified people to work for them in the future. The more qualified their employees are, the higher profit margin they see for their company. This is why some companies offer tuition reimbursement programs for their employees.

 

[EmiliaSong]

Because we're too busy paying for stupid fucking wars.

Mostly this.^

We don't have to raise taxes in order for the federal government to afford free college tuition (in the US college is the same as uni). Most of our federal taxes go to the military. War profiteers (arms manufacturers, private contractors, specialized tech companies, etc.) make a lot off money off our military. They pay for our politicians' and military officials' attention and favor through campaign donations and future, cushy job opportunities through a system of legalized bribery which encourages them to spend more taxpayer dollars on endless warfare and military engagements. Some politicians will exchange favors for monetary contributions to their favorite foundations.

Many, but not all, extremely wealthy people and corporate entities get away with paying few or no taxes by taking advantage of tax breaks, loopholes, and offshore accounting. Some business people will take advantage of bankruptcy laws to evade taxes and effectively get paid to go broke.

We don't have free college for the same reason why we don't have universal, federally-funded healthcare (which 58% of all American want), background checks for gun sales (around 90%), and a higher minimum wage (75% in favor): the United States is an oligarchy.

Edit: The dumbing down of America is a pleasant biproduct.

 

[Mila_]

Realistically speaking, right now the government can't fully handle covering all the costs of running colleges without additional income coming from students.

Would it be able to if we increased taxes? Maybe, depending on the tax hike. Still technically wouldn't be free, the cost would just be spread among the masses a bit more.

A better question is "why isn't college affordable without taking out massive loans?" The rate of tuition inflation versus normal inflation is shown here:

Notice how it started to get a bit steeper in the 90s? As student loans became more popular and attainable, colleges hiked their rates. Student loans were covering costs, so why not, right?

If we brought the cost of attending college down to a reasonable rate (similar to the normal inflation rate), maybe penalized schools for unrealistic charges ($300 for a "necessary" textbook you can resell for $10?), and maybe encouraged a moderate tax hike to help cover college costs, it could happen. But I don't see any of those things likely happening soon. Taxpayers want to keep their money (understandable), and colleges want to keep gouging kids (less understandable).

Frankly I wouldn't have cared about free college if the option of affordable college was on the table when I went. I get that a lot of people don't feel we should pay for somebody's adult education on their dime, and that's fine. If we could just get colleges to be reasonable about education costs and prioritize expenses (academics over sports, for example), then that would be a much better system than what's currently in place.

↑ This ↑

Education is a bubble right now. Thirty years ago college wasn't this expensive in the US. I have read people tell how they paid for their college with their summer job. But there were still people who couldn't afford it. Some of them got loans because they knew they would be able to repay them after graduating and landing a cushy job.

Colleges saw that people were willing to go in debt for tuition and started to hike the prices. Banks gave people more credit to cover the price hike. Repeat ad nauseam. Right now the bubble is so big that almost nobody can pay for their tuition without getting a loan.

This bubble is deflating but it will completely burst when the returns on investment turn nil. This happens when everybody has a degree so that cushy job is not guaranteed, therefore you can't pay for the loan much less justify the investment. The same thing happened with the housing market, the bubble is so big nobody can afford to buy a home without a massive loan. So anyone buying property in a city right now is an idiot.

How do you fix this? I don't know. Maybe end the myth that having a degree is a necessity because it isn't. Especially all the new useless faculties and degrees the intellectual class comes up with every year: sociology, philosophy, gender studies, all liberal arts should be tossed.

Education shouldn't be a private enterprise. It shouldn't be for profit. And it shouldn't be about ideology. In the past the Church took care of education. It was free for everyone. Right now in most civilized countries basic education is free and it covers anything that a normal person would need to navigate the world adequately. We were never supposed to go to the university en masse. It makes no sense.

 

[SMuser69]

Community college and State Colleges historically used to be very cheap for what you got that it wasn't an issue. it's only been a issue in the last 10-15 years the expense exploded.

The other issue is the government's turned a blind eye to industrial increases of the last 20 year. No senate outrage over $200 textbooks which contents haven't really changed in 50 years. 60% pay increases to college and university administrators while only 20% increases for teachers/professors. Repeated slashes to state funding of education in 40 states.

To answer the OP actual question. The reason most things aren't just "free" is that each state controls their education systems. There ARE states that do give free community college. The US is like 50 people that dislike each other sharing a single bathroom that nobody wants to clean or buy new toilet paper.

 

[AerynShade]

The US is like 50 people that dislike each other sharing a single bathroom that nobody wants to clean or buy new toilet paper.

This is the best description of the US I've ever read.

 

[ThePrincessLuxy]

Rich people don't want higher taxes because they are greedy.
I don't think its unfair at all for a millionaire or billionaire to be taxed a higher percentage than lower income or middle income people.

I'm not entirely sure it's because of greed. I don't think it's greedy to want to keep more of your earnings that you worked for. I think greedy people will take from other people, but if they want to keep more of their own money, that's pretty normal.

This is kind of derailing the topic a bit but I've been thinking a lot lately about what IS fair when it comes to taxes? I understand the wealthier pay higher taxes because they can more so afford to take the hit without sacrificing basic necessities like the lower class would; however with our current system, doesn't it discourage some people from working harder and being more productive? Example: people that are right on the cusp of earners that will jump into the next higher tax bracket. Say they get a promotion that will put them into the next bracket, which will require more hours, which means they have to hire a baby sitter, etc. So after the tax increase on the extra income, and the deduction of cost of babysitter, they actually end up losing money. Or even if they don't have any babysitting costs, if all their extra income is being heavily taxed maybe they decide taking that promotion and working harder for a "smaller" amount of extra money isn't worth it? If this is true, wouldn't it be more productive overall if we had a flat tax? That way people wouldn't be afraid to go the extra mile. Maybe productivity would go up. The only downside I see to a flat tax is that the overall rate would be higher for everyone, and that would put a lot more strain on the lower class. What are the repercussions to this?

I have no idea if this is reasonable thinking, I have never taken a economics class. Thoughts?

 

[SMuser69]

I'm not entirely sure it's because of greed. I don't think it's greedy to want to keep more of your earnings that you worked for. I think greedy people will take from other people, but if they want to keep more of their own money, that's pretty normal.

This is kind of derailing the topic a bit but I've been thinking a lot lately about what IS fair when it comes to taxes? I understand the wealthier pay higher taxes because they can more so afford to take the hit without sacrificing basic necessities like the lower class would; however with our current system, doesn't it discourage some people from working harder and being more productive? Example: people that are right on the cusp of earners that will jump into the next higher tax bracket. Say they get a promotion that will put them into the next bracket, which will require more hours, which means they have to hire a baby sitter, etc. So after the tax increase on the extra income, and the deduction of cost of babysitter, they actually end up losing money. Or even if they don't have any babysitting costs, if all their extra income is being heavily taxed maybe they decide taking that promotion and working harder for a "smaller" amount of extra money isn't worth it? If this is true, wouldn't it be more productive overall if we had a flat tax? That way people wouldn't be afraid to go the extra mile. Maybe productivity would go up. The only downside I see to a flat tax is that the overall rate would be higher for everyone, and that would put a lot more strain on the lower class. What are the repercussions to this?

I have no idea if this is reasonable thinking, I have never taken a economics class. Thoughts?

Short answer is no. The US uses a progressive tax system. Under the system your income is taxed AT the rate of the bracket going up. let's say you made $50K in a year, your first 9.3k is taxed at only 10% then everything above that is taxed at 15% till $38k roughly. Then the remainder upto your final $50K is taxed at 25% So lets say you take a job for $39K you're only being tax 25% on $1K of your income. Now here's the trick in this. We are only talking about work income, other forms of income have their own rates. The concept of a flat tax may sound easier but can be scamish based on how income is reported. Firstly you DO NOT have to pay federal income tax until you reach a certain threshold of income just your state tax. So under a flat tax poor people actually pay MORE tax because now they aren't avoiding the federal government taking at least another 15% from their base earnings.

tl;dr A rich person ALREADY pays the same as a poor person into each bracket. The rich person just has more brackets to cover. If you're too poor the federal government doesn't ask you for money. Under a flat tax system the government would take disproportionately more from the poor then from the rich.

 

[ThePrincessLuxy]

Short answer is no. The US uses a progressive tax system. Under the system your income is taxed AT the rate of the bracket going up. let's say you made $50K in a year, your first 9.3k is taxed at only 10% then everything above that is taxed at 15% till $38k roughly. Then the remainder upto your final $50K is taxed at 25% So lets say you take a job for $39K you're only being tax 25% on $1K of your income. Now here's the trick in this. We are only talking about work income, other forms of income have their own rates. The concept of a flat tax may sound easier but can be scamish based on how income is reported. Firstly you DO NOT have to pay federal income tax until you reach a certain threshold of income just your state tax. So under a flat tax poor people actually pay MORE tax because now they aren't avoiding the federal government taking at least another 15% from their base earnings.

tl;dr A rich person ALREADY pays the same as a poor person into each bracket. The rich person just has more brackets to cover. If you're too poor the federal government doesn't ask you for money. Under a flat tax system the government would take disproportionately more from the poor then from the rich.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Vera]

@Luxy Reid hit the nail on the head in terms of de-incentivizing enterprise. The current tax structure really penalizes enterprising individuals and small business owners who land in a high tax bracket by virtue of their blood, sweat, and tears, but lets large corporate entities off the hook almost entirely if they are savvy enough to game the system. (Cough, Trump, cough.) This hits very close to home as my own father is a self-made man, very involved in charity, and overcame addiction to achieve a high level of success but has to pay an obscene amount of taxes as a result. Like, highest bracket, yet he supports both his parents, who are divorced, his niece and her son, and pays for my siblings' education. It really discourages free enterprise and leaves middle America and the self-made professionals in a heinous position. I am very fiscally conservative and, obviously, socially liberal. The issue is when representatives are bought out and the needs of the people are disregarded.

TL;DR Exercise your right to vote. Also, I studied finance as an undergrad, which may or may not bias me but whatever, it's just my opinion.

As far as the actual thread goes, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something wrong when individuals who are supposed to represent the needs of the people can be bought out.

 

[ThePrincessLuxy]

Oh, I remember why I brought up taxes.

I had many friends who were lower middle class whose parents actually took pay cuts in order to qualify their kids for more loans for school. If they had not their own personal income would not of been enough to send them to college.

 

[Molison]

College is free in the UK. We just have to pay for University.

Not in Scotland if you are Scottish. You have to pay in England, Wales and N.Ireland.

The standard tuition fee for an undergraduate degree course in Scotland in 2016 is £1,820. The Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) will pay these fees if you meet eligibility conditions.

 

[Guy]

I could never afford college. My aunt never saved up anything for me, and UW Madison's tuition is $25,000 a year.

 

[SMuser69]

I could never afford college. My aunt never saved up anything for me, and UW Madison's tuition is $25,000 a year.

You're looking at cost of attendance. The actual instate is still $11k. You don't HAVE TO live on campus so that shaves $10k off. $1200 estimate on books and stuff can be bargained down. If you make some concessions you can probably get through at around $16k still. That said I think people going to college and picking shitty majors is over.

 

[DrWangFei]

Detroit, of all places, created a program that if you graduated within their city limits you go to Community College for free... I think if other cities/states see that this can work, it will start to become more standard.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/edu...ills-dps-plans-education-initiative/82115622/

 

[ThePrincessLuxy]

If you graduate highschool from kalamazoo, MI you will get 25-100% of your 4 year education paid for depending on how long you lived there. Gotta love those anonymous donors!

 

[SaffronBurke]

Example: people that are right on the cusp of earners that will jump into the next higher tax bracket. Say they get a promotion that will put them into the next bracket, which will require more hours, which means they have to hire a baby sitter, etc. So after the tax increase on the extra income, and the deduction of cost of babysitter, they actually end up losing money.

My mom had an annual performance raise that was just enough to bump her up to the next tax bracket, but only just. So, for a year, she was grossing more, but netting less, on each paycheck. The next year's raise made up for it, but that one year was a bit of a struggle.

 

[Mila_]

I'm not entirely sure it's because of greed. I don't think it's greedy to want to keep more of your earnings that you worked for. I think greedy people will take from other people, but if they want to keep more of their own money, that's pretty normal.

This is kind of derailing the topic a bit but I've been thinking a lot lately about what IS fair when it comes to taxes? I understand the wealthier pay higher taxes because they can more so afford to take the hit without sacrificing basic necessities like the lower class would; however with our current system, doesn't it discourage some people from working harder and being more productive? Example: people that are right on the cusp of earners that will jump into the next higher tax bracket. Say they get a promotion that will put them into the next bracket, which will require more hours, which means they have to hire a baby sitter, etc. So after the tax increase on the extra income, and the deduction of cost of babysitter, they actually end up losing money. Or even if they don't have any babysitting costs, if all their extra income is being heavily taxed maybe they decide taking that promotion and working harder for a "smaller" amount of extra money isn't worth it? If this is true, wouldn't it be more productive overall if we had a flat tax? That way people wouldn't be afraid to go the extra mile. Maybe productivity would go up. The only downside I see to a flat tax is that the overall rate would be higher for everyone, and that would put a lot more strain on the lower class. What are the repercussions to this?

I have no idea if this is reasonable thinking, I have never taken a economics class. Thoughts?

A flat income tax is a fair system provided you skip taxing people who earn below the subsistance threshold.

I dont think it is fair to tax people more the more they make simply because they can afford it. Each person should carry their own weight and pay a little more to subsidize those who cant. But expecting someone to pay millions in income tax is not fair regardless of how much they make.

@Luxy Reid hit the nail on the head in terms of de-incentivizing enterprise. The current tax structure really penalizes enterprising individuals and small business owners who land in a high tax bracket by virtue of their blood, sweat, and tears, but lets large corporate entities off the hook almost entirely if they are savvy enough to game the system. (Cough, Trump, cough.) This hits very close to home as my own father is a self-made man, very involved in charity, and overcame addiction to achieve a high level of success but has to pay an obscene amount of taxes as a result. Like, highest bracket, yet he supports both his parents, who are divorced, his niece and her son, and pays for my siblings' education. It really discourages free enterprise and leaves middle America and the self-made professionals in a heinous position. I am very fiscally conservative and, obviously, socially liberal. The issue is when representatives are bought out and the needs of the people are disregarded.

TL;DR Exercise your right to vote. Also, I studied finance as an undergrad, which may or may not bias me but whatever, it's just my opinion.

As far as the actual thread goes, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something wrong when individuals who are supposed to represent the needs of the people can be bought out.

Oh, I remember why I brought up taxes.

I had many friends who were lower middle class whose parents actually took pay cuts in order to qualify their kids for more loans for school. If they had not their own personal income would not of been enough to send them to college.

The current system is rigged against the middle class. It is an allegiance between the ultra-rich, the ultra-poor, and the intellectual class against the people in the middle: blue collar workers, middle class families, and independent businesses. As much as Trump belongs in the "ultra-rich" category and knows how to avoid paying high taxes, he is an outer buroughs guy and he is trying to change things

 

[ThePrincessLuxy]

A flat income tax is a fair system provided you skip taxing people who earn below the subsistance threshold.

I dont think it is fair to tax people more the more they make simply because they can afford it. Each person should carry their own weight and pay a little more to subsidize those who cant. But expecting someone to pay millions in income tax is not fair regardless of how much they make.





The current system is rigged against the middle class. It is an allegiance between the ultra-rich, the ultra-poor, and the intellectual class against the people in the middle: blue collar workers, middle class families, and independent businesses. As much as Trump belongs in the "ultra-rich" category and knows how to avoid paying high taxes, he is an outer buroughs guy and he is trying to change things

I agree with everything except thelast sentence. Can you pm me explaining why and what policies he is claiming towards this? Or post it here, I just don't want this thread to derail too much.

 

[Mila_]

I agree with everything except thelast sentence. Can you pm me explaining why and what policies he is claiming towards this? Or post it here, I just don't want this thread to derail too much.

This is a good article about it:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/outer...-cant-stomach-trump-despite-agreeing-with-him

Most of his policies are geared towards helping the middle class, the blue collar workers, and independent businesses. He wants to break the Wallstreet-Washington bond as well. I will PM you if you want more info.

 

[fandango]

Not in Scotland if you are Scottish. You have to pay in England, Wales and N.Ireland.

Uni is free in scotland but it is still heavily subsidised in the rest of the UK for British citizens even though we have to pay some of the costs. When I graduated in 2012 it was £3k per year for tuition fees and it has now gone up to £9k per year. When I was at Uni I had some friends who were international students and they were paying over £20k per year and I don't know what they pay now but it's probably even more. Before 1998 it was free for everyone in the UK but there were a lot less places available and way less people went to university.

 

[Snowie1969]

The simple answer is: Because this is working and it's working towards those who lend the money. There is great cash being made with depths and the banking world wants to keep it that way. Just be born, be a consumer for as long as possible, even if no one can afford it.

 

[penfold_43]

As I recall "College" in the US is from about age 18 and is for your undergraduate degree. Here in the UK, the places you get undergraduate (and post graduate) degrees are univerisites (though Oxford and Cambridge universities have colleges within them). UK universities can charge students tuition fees up to around £9,000/year. When I went to university (1988-91, yes that means I graduated before many of you were born, and yes that makes me feel OLD) it was free.

In the UK (I'll come back to Scotland) tuition costs because successive governments in the 1990s and beyond kept setting goals of more and more 18 years olds getting degrees rather than going immediately into the workplace. They also encouraged more and more 16 year olds to stay on the extra two years to 18 at school (nowadays you have to be in education or training until you are 18, in my day you could leave school at the start of the term in which your 16th birthday fell and immediately start work). By keeping them out of the labour market for longer, it brings the politically sensitive unemployment figure down. Trouble was, to expand the universities to support the increased student numbers costs plenty and general taxation couldn't handle the burden, so it had to come from those studying as they gain the perceived benefit from having a better education. Generally students self fund through loans (for tuition and for living costs) that are paid back out of earnings once salary reaches a certain level, as mynameisbob84 explained.

Knock on effect is tjat with an increasing proportion of the population getting degrees, entrly level positions that previously weren't considered graduate posts now are.

There is a lengthy debate to be had about spending priorities and why further education cannot be funded from taxation, but if I start on that I'll get onto Brexit and the NHS and no-one needs that.

Scotland is different as it can control its own spending independent of Westminster and the parliament at Holyrood chooses to fund tutition fees for Scots students, and EU students at Scots universities, unless the part of the EU they are from is England. (that's a long argument too, involving the Barnett formula, the West Lothian question and the unustainable budget defecit the Scots government is running at the moment).