Vince Cable set to propose graduate tax

Kohoutek

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.

Benefit claimants are eligible to more than just bread and cheese these days...dunno if you've aware of that – explains why the welfare budget is over £100bn/years.

How about providing someone with a home? That's an 'investment in someone's future'. If you receive housing benefit at £200/week for three years, it costs the state £31,200 – probably not far off what the state pays to send people to university.

Child benefit, sure start maternity grants, laptop grants – by definition an investment into a child's future.

What's your justification for benefits that clearly aren't just 'subsistence payments' like tax credits? The budget for tax credits is over double the budget for higher education BTW.

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Why should the population at large pay for someone else's wish for knowledge?

It's their choice, but choices have a cost and I really don't see why taxpayers should fund it.

Everyone is entitled to a basic level of education. Those who wish to better themselves should do exactly that - better themselves.

So you don't think 'the population at large' (whatever that means) should pay for a prospective doctor, teachers, scientists, engineer's 'wish for knowledge'? Has it ever occurred to you that many university graduates contribute a lot more to society, financially or otherwise than it cost to send them to university?

You could use your stupid 'why should the population pay' argument against almost any type of transfer payment – most state benefits, regional subsidies, cultural and artistic funding, agricultural subsidies, the civil list (which I might agree with), etc.

Harry_Flashman

OK, so you've gone back to the argument that those who wish to go to university do so to get jobs like doctors, teachers, etc. That's fine, but what's wrong with expecting them to pay the cost back from their salaries (which are likely to be higher then those who don't go to university)?

Kohoutek

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

OK, so you've gone back to the argument that those who wish to go to university do so to get jobs like doctors, teachers, etc. That's fine, but what's wrong with expecting them to pay the cost back from their salaries (which are likely to be higher then those who don't go to university)?

They already pay the cost back - are doctors and teachers exempt from income tax and other taxes?

The proceeds of income tax go to the higher education budget, among other things.

Harry_Flashman

No they're not - but they've had something extra from the tax 'pot'. Others who haven't had this also pay tax.

I ask you again, why is it unreasonable for them to pay back the investment in their future career?

ILW

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

No they're not - but they've had something extra from the tax 'pot'. Others who haven't had this also pay tax.

I ask you again, why is it unreasonable for them to pay back the investment in their future career?

Why cannot others see this very basic point?

olly300

ILW wrote: »

Why cannot others see this very basic point?

Simply because you are being idealistic.

Are you happy for your income tax level to rise 1%? If you are and a lot people are then we can have free higher education for everyone who wants it.

As governments know this is a vote loser - one reason why labour were unelectable until 1997- they won't do it.

Plus as a country we are not collecting enough in tax income to fund everything that's wanted including giving the universities enough money to provide a high standard of higher education.

So while you obviously think it's fair for students to take out tuition loans that are 3 to 10 times* the amount they are now to cover the full cost of their education, one thing you have to remember the government is already having problems in getting student loans back from people.


*Depends on the course they are doing.

Pete111

As ever, the Mash has presented the arguments more brilliantly than we ever could :

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/graduates-who-earn-more-to-be-taxed-for-turning-up-to-lectures-201007152913/

ILW

olly300 wrote: »

Simply because you are being idealistic.

Are you happy for your income tax level to rise 1%? If you are and a lot people are then we can have free higher education for everyone who wants it.

As governments know this is a vote loser - one reason why labour were unelectable until 1997- they won't do it.

Plus as a country we are not collecting enough in tax income to fund everything that's wanted including giving the universities enough money to provide a high standard of higher education.

So while you obviously think it's fair for students to take out tuition loans that are 3 to 10 times* the amount they are now to cover the full cost of their education, one thing you have to remember the government is already having problems in getting student loans back from people.


*Depends on the course they are doing.

Think you misunderstood.

I am all for a graduate tax which will solve all the above problems.

olly300

ILW wrote: »

Think you misunderstood.

I am all for a graduate tax which will solve all the above problems.

Sorry I confused you with Kohoutek who is being idealistic.

Pennywise

Easy solutions:-

1. Scrap the ridiculous 50% target.
2. Scrap the poly-unis and turn them back into polytechnics.
3. Beef-Up the local colleges and poly's for far more "trades" courses such as plumbing, electricians, builders, joiners, etc - not just hairdressing and media studies!
4. 1-4 will greatly reduce the need for students to live away from home, thus saving their parents shed loads of money in paying rents and living costs. Parents can then use the money saved to pay course tuition fees, books & materials, reducing need for overdrafts and student loans.
5. More students living at home because they're studying close to home - leads to them being able to get low paid jobs (i.e. apprentice and trainee positions) because of not paying market rent etc. If training wages are less, firms take on more trainees, trainees gain experience, work up the ladder, get better pay/jobs, then can afford their own rent/mortgage etc. Students happy, firms happy.

I really don't see all the fuss made about students needing the Uni life to gain independence, new cultures, etc. Uni is still not the real world. Once you leave, you still have to learn to be properly independent. I didn't go to uni, I "learned" to be an adult because I got a trainee position with a local firm - I was surrounded by adults and lost my immaturity within a few weeks. The firm only had about a dozen employees, but there were both sexes, a gay, a couple of non white non Engish people, old and young (oldest 75, youngest 16) - a couple of highly qualified professionals, a couple of barely literates with no quals at all - others at varying levels inbetween. Getting my first job was what made me into an adult - far more effectively, quickly and efficiently - in just a few weeks rather than 3 years of uni.

The fact is that the country isn't crying out for 22 year olds with a 2:2 degree in media studies or history who's spent that last three years partying and living from pot noodles in a shared house or dorm. We are crying out for skilled tradespeople, plumbers, etc., we need skilled engineers, etc. The education system is far too academic based and the conversion of polys to unis and then the 50% target have gone completely in the wrong direction. Fewer people at unis means lower costs all round and a more relevant workforce.