Graduate Tax

[oafc0000]

Proposed by Cabell today...

On one hand I want to see tuition fees go and the debt that goes with it...

On the other hand this is just another way of making you pay for it, and you will end up paying more over your life time...

I would take it over tuition fees rocketing (talk of £7k a year at the moment)... but I would prefer the current system over this proposal..

[Alcatraz]

Well, next year I may potentially be at Uni so I need to get my head around this. Obviously the fees as they stand aren't exactly fair and maybe a sliding scale would be in order, but that doesn't guarantee the universities the funding they need. I probably do support the graduate tax, but still need to hear how it will be payed, at which point and the levels and for how long. Sounds like the NUS support it, which is probably a sign that its the step in the right direction.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Proposed by Cabell today...

On one hand I want to see tuition fees go and the debt that goes with it...

On the other hand this is just another way of making you pay for it, and you will end up paying more over your life time...

I would take it over tuition fees rocketing (talk of £7k a year at the moment)... but I would prefer the current system over this proposal..

Edited July 15, 2010 by Rufus Gwertigan

[Ed209]

At least with student loans a student knows exactly what they owe for the fees and it will be repayed. As I am reading the proposal the Graduate Tax will just continue on and on.

Some of the shite that is been spouted like higher earners are repaying the same as a teacher etc. What crap you pay 9% of your income over 15k so if a teacher is on 24k they will pay less than someone on 50k surely??

[The Nal]

One of Tony Blairs biggest mistakes. Educated for free in the finest educational establishments England had to offer, and then pulled the ladder up on the generation behind him. Disgraceful. No idea how he got away with that one.

Edited July 15, 2010 by The Nal

[oafc0000]

Some of the shite that is been spouted like higher earners are repaying the same as a teacher etc. What crap you pay 9% of your income over 15k so if a teacher is on 24k they will pay less than someone on 50k surely??

Edited July 15, 2010 by oafc0000

[eFestivals]

I would prefer the current system over this proposal..

There's a very specific reason why this govt don't want the current system, and that's the impact it has on the deficit.

But of course, being the standard tory boys, it also has the advantage of making Uni something that's essentially only available to the children of tory boys, or if not, to people who will become tory voters. They can't have the oiks getting on and competing with the tory boys - they like the free market, but only when it allows them to stitch-up the oiks, it's not meant to work against them, oh no.

Just wait, and watch for the amendment that I'm sure will be added-in before this idea becomes law. And that amendment will be "if you pay your Uni fees up-front then you can avoid paying the graduate tax" - just perfect to keep income tax lower for their lifetime for those most likely to be given the highest paying jobs by their daddy, while shafting the rest with a much higher graduate tax than it would otherwise be.

[eFestivals]

Some of the shite that is been spouted like higher earners are repaying the same as a teacher etc. What crap you pay 9% of your income over 15k so if a teacher is on 24k they will pay less than someone on 50k surely??

If you're talking about the current system, you've misunderstood how it works.

While both might be paying 9%, as person only pays that amount until the money they've paid via that has re-paid the 'loan' the govt has made to them for fees and student loans - so both pay the same amount back (providing they've borrowed the same amount to start with), but the high earner pays it off more quickly.

[lost]

Can't see it working personally, firstly I assumme its not retrospective, if it is can I give my degree back?

Secondly I cant see how people would be recorded, Ive got mates who the student loan company haven't caught up with yet. Also what would qualify? open university, HND's, masters ( I know someone doing a post graduate masters who isnt a graduate) foundation degree's?? you may as well do one of the other courses to avoid the tax. If you can pay up front then anyone with half a brain would or plan to leave the country straight afterwards.

The argument seems to be its fair as people with degrees earn more but its pretty obvious many don't nowadays and there is a pretty obvious solution to catch people who do earn more, just put up income tax and use that money to fund free higher education.

[eFestivals]

The argument seems to be its fair as people with degrees earn more but its pretty obvious many don't nowadays and there is a pretty obvious solution to catch people who do earn more, just put up income tax and use that money to fund free higher education.

Spot on!

[dakyras]

The argument that it's fair because graduates earn more is pathetic. If a graduate earns more, they will therefore pay more income tax to begin with.

If a graduate is meant to earn on average £100,000 more over his or her lifetime, then just with income tax, that's about £33,000. Average student loan debt? £23,000.

Why tax a graduate for earning more, when he or she will contribute more income tax in the first place? Ridiculous.

[beLIEveR]

Just wait, and watch for the amendment that I'm sure will be added-in before this idea becomes law. And that amendment will be "if you pay your Uni fees up-front then you can avoid paying the graduate tax" - just perfect to keep income tax lower for their lifetime for those most likely to be given the highest paying jobs by their daddy, while shafting the rest with a much higher graduate tax than it would otherwise be.

[lolbeck]

Saw this on the news at lunch time. Pretty much one of the only times I told my dad to shut up and turn the volume up.

At least with student loans a student knows exactly what they owe for the fees and it will be repayed. As I am reading the proposal the Graduate Tax will just continue on and on.

[Alcatraz]

That's my read on it too.

I would be 100% for the new proposal if I wasn't certain that this would happen.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Alcatraz

[Ed209]

The argument seems to be its fair as people with degrees earn more but its pretty obvious many don't nowadays and there is a pretty obvious solution to catch people who do earn more, just put up income tax and use that money to fund free higher education.

[Snufflebutt]

Why tax a graduate for earning more, when he or she will contribute more income tax in the first place? Ridiculous.

[beLIEveR]

Would this decision not require party consensus, as successive governments are going to have to maintain it through cycles of graduates. Is that likely to happen?

[oafc0000]

If this is what the government has in mind, then I don't see why it is unreasonable

Edited July 16, 2010 by oafc0000

[eFestivals]

The argument that it's fair because graduates earn more is pathetic. If a graduate earns more, they will therefore pay more income tax to begin with.

If a graduate is meant to earn on average £100,000 more over his or her lifetime, then just with income tax, that's about £33,000. Average student loan debt? £23,000.

Why tax a graduate for earning more, when he or she will contribute more income tax in the first place? Ridiculous.

We live in something called "a society". That's a scenario where any one person is only able to make their own achievements

because of what all others are also doing.

So, for example, the man who earns £100k a year is only in the position to do that because (say) there's a midwife on much much lower wages who brought him safely into the world to enable to go onto earn that amount; there's a teacher on much much lower wages than him who gave him a base of knowledge which enabled him to go on to be that high earner. Etc, etc, etc.

If you think that any individual's success is just their own work, you're so far off the mark it's laughable.

[eFestivals]

I wonder if such an ammendment could be passed though? As sceptical as we like to be, I can't see it coming from the government bench, it clashes too much with what the Lib Dems have always had in mind, meaning ultimately it doesn't have a hope in hell at a vote.

While I guess what you say might be how things happen at this time, it sets a scenario where it's easy for that change to be made when any govt is in the position to push it thru.

Given that the tories have already announced the biggest reform in the NHS's history to enable the NHS budget to be paid to their mates in private companies but where there wasn't even a hint of doing this in their manifesto (tho you can find posts of mine on these forums over the last couple of years saying this is exactly what they would do), then they certainly wouldn't have any shame in creating a way for the rich to bypass any graduate tax.

[Alcatraz]

While I guess what you say might be how things happen at this time, it sets a scenario where it's easy for that change to be made when any govt is in the position to push it thru.

[t8yman]

The cause of the problem (deficit wise) is that any old tom dick or harry can go to uni these days. I'm not saying it should only be the wealthy - I'm saying it should only be the most gifted. Otherwise the whole "I've got a degree" claim loses its value IMHO.

shoot me if you want, but I believe the further education and higher education system are there in part to keep the dole queues down. Graduates are taking lower and lower paid jobs these days because there is so little choice out there today, and so few jobs.

I'm not criticising people for going into further/higher education - I would love to be able to do it myself.

[harper11]

i agree that there are far too many uni places

government should cap funded places and all other degrees should be cost price

[pink_triangle]

That's the dream, a good education system should pay for itself through its contribution to society. The grad tax is a symptom of the main problem though, and that's that the higher education system is too big to be supported by the tax payer without seriously pissing them off. Labour created way too many degree places (Thatcher started the problem though by using it as a screen for unemployment figures), these extra places were funded by scraping grants and introducing tuition fees. In the mean time loads of people went through uni, doing degrees where they learnt less than they could have done spending the 3 years on a vocational course or in a job, and they end up with massive amounts of debt!

Cut university places and make it free for those who really want it and will really learn something.

Edited July 16, 2010 by pink_triangle

[oafc0000]

Agreed, labours attempt to get everyone in university was a bad idea in my opinion. Too many people ddoing courses which wont really help them get a job specific to that degree in the future. Also from doing agency work in between my degree, I have observed non skilled jobs offering grauduates a higher wage than non graduates to do the same job, which creates a feeling of inequality.

I would also like to see an end to 3 year degrees where people are going in for only a few hours a week. I agree with the idea to convert these to 2 year degrees. To me a degree should be a 5 day a week commitment.

Edited July 16, 2010 by oafc0000