Vince Cable set to propose graduate tax

Kohoutek

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Don't students take degree courses to enable them to get better jobs?

Doesn't that mean that they expect earn more money than those who don't take degree courses (generally)?

So where's the problem with them paying back what the taxpayer has put into this educational 'extra'?

Graduates with jobs already contribute toward higher education in the current system through income tax. There's no link between the amount of money someone would pay in graduate tax and the cost of their education, and it's almost certain that the money raised in the graduate tax would not be 'ring-fenced' – even NI isn't ring fenced.

Using your logic, why not ask everyone that has got a little 'extra' from the taxpayer to pay higher taxes? Should we have a 'benefit claimant' tax for people that have received state benefits when they find a job? Or a teacher that has trained in the state sector and left for the private sector?

Harry_Flashman

Well, the benefit claimant is merely getting subsistence payments not an investment in their future so, no I wouldn't say that's on a par.

The teacher, on the other hand, is a graduate so will already have the 'graduate tax' to pay so it's a bit irrelevant.

Framps

Kohoutek wrote: »

Should we have a 'benefit claimant' tax for people that have received state benefits when they find a job?

We do, it's called national insurance - everyone in employment pays it to some extent or other to insure them against losing their job (amongst other things), so that they receive money from the state. Alright, it's slightly different to what you are saying but the principle is the same.

Also, you don't need the extra funds to be ring-fenced - the tax doesn't literally have to pay for higher education it can indirectly do this by covering spend elsewhere...

Idiophreak

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Don't students take degree courses to enable them to get better jobs?

Doesn't that mean that they expect earn more money than those who don't take degree courses (generally)?

So where's the problem with them paying back what the taxpayer has put into this educational 'extra'?

Not all students study to get a better job - and that's the way it should be. To be well educated is an end in itself.

In my view, people shouldn't be required to pay at all for education - as well as being good for the individual, it's good for the country both in terms of enhanced skills and in terms of population control - if I had to choose to pay for 10 people to go to uni and get a degree, or had to pay to put 10 people up in their council house, funding their fags and sky TV for a year, I know which I'd choose.

I wouldn't have a problem funding people through uni with my tax, just as I don't have a problem supporting the disabled, paying for the NHS or paying the bin men. Some things the government has to invest in to give us a better life - surely education is a worthwhile investment.

It's very easy in these discussions to start thinking of higher education as some kind of training program for graduate schemes - personally, I feel universities are much more significant than that.

FATBALLZ

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Well, the benefit claimant is merely getting subsistence payments not an investment in their future so, no I wouldn't say that's on a par.

The teacher, on the other hand, is a graduate so will already have the 'graduate tax' to pay so it's a bit irrelevant.

Subsistence payments allowing the benefit claimant to be able to purchase food is an investment in their future, as it prevents them from starving to death or having to commit crime and get locked up.

Andy_L

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

The OU's fees are still subsidised - compare the UK costs with what they charge for foreign students

tincans

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

What is you go to a Buckingham University (or a USA one) and pay the fees ? Would you pay the graduate tax then.

Would the graduate tax last for life ?

Do we want doctors paying a higher rate of tax than footballers ?

What will the graduate tax be ?

If this made top rate tax say 50% + 5% = 50% would this push some people to leave the country ?

Why should people at Eton (28k) per year, go to University and pay 3.5k per year ?

The only decent solution is to let the Universities set the fees on a course by course basis and have a bursary system that allows students from poor backgrounds to still go.

Trouble is that the middle class fight awfully hard when its their state benefits under threat (hugely subsidised higher education).

lynzpower

There seems to be a "suggestion" that people go to university to get a "better job, I think that means "better paid" job in the minds of many here.

I have known of many people who have given up the corporate job to retrain as teachers nurses, or some other profession like this. An extra tax on the starting salaries on some of these low-paid PS workers ( im thinking those 23k teachers) and will repel people from doing it.

As it is now, Student loans are not the same as a tax, falling into money, saving hard, winning a few K on the premium bonds or being left money in a will are all ways one might be able to pay off student debt quicker

Imagine this: 2 twin girls study law, both come out with 1sts. One goes to practice in some high-fly magic circle firm on a 3 figure salary
The other works in the charity sector as a housing lawyer for say Shelter or crisis. They have wildly different salaries.

It should be income tax and nothing more. Why should someone who earns 50k without a degree pay less tax as someone who earns 50k with a degree? A punishment for bettering yourself is all it is.

Degenerate

Andy_L wrote: »

Would they, or would they just pay it back more quickly and go back to "normal tax", I can't see that the plan would be a "graduate tax rate" for life

You're describing a revised, more specifically means-tested loan repayment schedule. A "graduate tax", by the simple implication of being a tax rather than loan repayment, would not function in this way.

artha

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I also know student that have taken loans and spent it on non educational stuff.
.

I know of someone who lived at home, didn't need the student loan, but took it anyway so that their parents business could get it's hands on cheap money on top of some very generous start up grants etc