Vince Cable set to propose graduate tax

ILW

Kohoutek wrote: »

No, because taxation isn't supposed to work like that.

.

Why not, it seems fair that if you personally decide to take more from the system, you should pay a little more back if in a position to do so.

Kohoutek

ILW wrote: »

Why not, it seems fair that if you personally decide to take more from the system, you should pay a little more back if in a position to do so.

So does that apply to grown up sixth formers, former benefit claimants, etc too? They've all make a personal decision 'to take more from the system'.

How do you decide what types of government spending should include an obligation for the beneficiaries to 'pay it back' and which types shouldn't?

ILW

Free education to 18.
From then on any further should have a payback element.
I would suggest benefit claimants (in theory) are not doing it by choice.

olly300

Kohoutek wrote: »

So does that apply to grown up sixth formers, former benefit claimants, etc too? They've all make a personal decision 'to take more from the system'.

After the age of 18 (extended until you reach your 19th birthday) you are an adult and have to pay for the cost of your college course. You are not legally an adult in this country until you are 18 so are not expected to pay your way.

Benefit claimants pay NI for the privilege of benefits so have already paid for their benefits.

If you are arguing that it should all be free then you agree that income tax should rise 1% across the board to pay for it.

If you don't want a rise in income tax across the board then explain how it can be paid for?

Kohoutek

ILW wrote: »

Free education to 18.
From then on any further should have a payback element.
I would suggest benefit claimants (in theory) are not doing it by choice.

It's a choice whether to claim benefits or not, unless you're literally incapable of working – have you ever heard the phrase 'what I am entitled to?'. Obviously I'm thinking more of things like tax credits, and not benefits for people who are disabled.

If you really think that graduates should 'pay back' the cost of education, then I guess you must think that graduates don't have any benefit to the economy that increases the wealth of society as a whole.

I think that many graduates probably do benefit society more than they cost society, as do many non-graduate jobs. The key is having a balance. At the moment, there are perhaps too few people pursuing vocational courses that lead to jobs the economy needs and too many pursuing poor quality academic courses that will lead to nothing. I don't think the answer is to impose a special tax on graduates that has no relationship with the cost of their education, and doesn't take into account how much they already contribute in tax.

Kohoutek

olly300 wrote: »

Benefit claimants pay NI for the privilege of benefits so have already paid for their benefits.

That's absolutely ridiculous. The people that draw the most benefits are often the ones that have contributed the least or nothing. If a 17 year old that has never worked has a baby, does the state wait until she has made thousands of pounds of NI contributions before giving her HB and CTB? How about the retiree that has never worked? They still get pension credit, free prescriptions, free bus pass, HB, CTB.

The government doesn't even bother to keep NI income separate from other tax income - they 'borrow' from the national insurance fund to pay for other spending.

olly300 wrote: »

If you don't want a rise in income tax across the board then explain how it can be paid for?

Raising tuition fees, lowering the number of university places, transferring money from other departments (I'd rather spend an extra £500 million on higher education than free TV licences for old people).

Rosie75

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1294231/How-latest-generation-graduates-choosing-time-motherhood-high-flying-careers.html

I know it's the Mail, but I also come across plenty of female students whose sole aspiration is to find a rich husband and become a kept woman. Is it right that this kind of student should never have to pay back the cost of their education, while someone who's working a 60-hour week pays back the cost of their university course several times over? Isn't there potential for real discrepancies, also, between what men and women pay back, bearing in mind career breaks for raising children?

I suspect that this tax is being proposed because the government are reluctant to charge students for the "real" cost of their education. That would involve science students being charged 2-3 times more than arts students, or the government subsiding the expensive science / engineering / medicine courses more heavily, which they are clearly not prepared to do.

Harry_Powell

nearly there!