Vince Cable set to propose graduate tax

tincans

Idiophreak wrote: »

Except:
"Under a graduate tax, the amount paid would depend upon earnings - compared with the current system in which a fixed amount is paid back."

Meaning you'd be financially penalised for taking a degree that would lead to a full time job...and you'll end up with (sweeping generalisation ahoy) scientist and engineers subsidising the arts even moreso than they do at present.

Possibly, but the real cost of an arts degree may be about £5k per year, a science or engineering degree £10k per year and a medical degree £15k+ per year.

As it happens there are plenty of pure science people toiling away for pretty poor pay.

I was once very much against fees, however I don't see much choice.

This issue will end up being a resigning issue for Vince. He is dead set against increasing fees, whereas all the Vice Chancellors want to jack them up and the Tories will be happy to go along with that.

The UK's problem is not with the number of people taking degrees but with the 15-20% of 18-24 year olds who are not in education or training.

StevieJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I guess you mean Vince.

I studied through the Open University

Yes Vince and his fellow budget slashers.

tincans

lynzpower wrote: »

Crazy. I have the money to pay for my masters in fees, Ive saved this myself.

Why should I have a grad tax that will arguably cost me a lot more than 5k over the next 30 years of my working life?

Why not a system where you can pay upfront or go down the "grad tax" route.

lynzpower

tincans wrote: »

Why not a system where you can pay upfront or go down the "grad tax" route.

The grad tax will obviously bring in more money so Ill be staggered if this is offered as an option.

RabbitMad

oscar52 wrote: »

But its not actually "fixed". Yes, ok its 9%, but 9% of £5000 (so earning £20K) is more than 9% of £1000 (person earning £16K)

Well it is fixed as you pay back what you borrowed plus interest at the rate of 9% per year of your income over x.

I think the solution is not to have tuition fees, but have a lot less courses. why do we need 50% of the population with degrees?

IveSeenTheLight

tincans wrote: »

Why not a system where you can pay upfront or go down the "grad tax" route.

What if you don't go to university and study through the OU?
I guess they still get you as it would be a 'grad tax'.
Not exactly fair unless they start covering the OU fee's

FATBALLZ

FTBFun wrote: »

So not much difference from how student loans are repaid at the moment, then!

Except graduates will now have an unlimited liability. Pretty disgusting really, targeting the hardworking young who are already very economically disadvantaged. If anything they should just reduce the repayment threshold so graduates pay back more of the money and sooner. This policy is just a disgrace, causing graduates who have bothered to do worthwhile degrees that get them jobs to subsidise the wasters even further than they already do.

Kohoutek

FTBFun wrote: »

So not much difference from how student loans are repaid at the moment, then!

Not really. The system at the moment is that you borrow a sum of money from the government, effectively interest free, to invest into your education and repay the debt once get a job and start earning money.

The new proposed system is 1. The government pays for your university education in full 2. Graduates that get a job pay an additional tax on their income for 20 years or so, proportionate to how much they earn.

There is no connection between the money the government paid for your education and the money that you paid in 'graduate tax'. You could pay a lot more than the government spent on your degree, or a lot less. Sounds like a very stupid idea to me, will surely encourage UK students that are planning to go into law/finance/accounting/management etc to study outside the UK.

tartanterra

The principle is sound, although I can't see where Cable is going with this particular proposal.

Paying the full cost of any further education after the age of 18 seems pretty reasonable, when others in your own peer group are already out earning and contributing taxes.

If anything it would make people think twice about getting a degree in aquatics or media studies if they knew that they would be paying the money back from their post degree earnings in the fish and chip shop or Blockbuster video.

Kohoutek

tartanterra wrote: »

If anything it would make people think twice about getting a degree in aquatics or media studies if they knew that they would be paying the money back from their post degree earnings in the fish and chip shop or Blockbuster video.

Do many people really enrol in a degree course thinking they will end up doing a non-graduate job? I think it's more about unrealistic expectation about how much certain courses/universities can add to your employability. Why not just close the courses/departments/universities that fail to add any value to graduates?