MSE News: Government proposes graduate tax

Trunk_z

What if I were to leave the country? Do I then dodge the tax and therefore don't have to pay for Uni?

What about those who have gone to Uni, not done so well (although still used the same amount of money having their education), and end up being under a threshold or not paying back the full amount? Why should someone who has broken their balls to do well and managed to land a decent job have to effectively pay for someone elses degree?

At either rate, I'm hoping that it won't effect people who have already graduated.

starryataris

I think far more information needs to be released with respect to how exactly this is going to work before I can form a reasoned opinion on it. Currently I very much agree with many of the comments already written.
A higher earner paying more than a low earner for a university degree does not seem fair, it's almost penalising the people who have become the most successful no matter how they have acheived it.
In my opinion to change this system to become more fair, the cost per student per subject nationally would have to be calculated and then every student would pay their specific subject course amount back. It is not fair for the doctors, lawyers, architects etc to have to subsidise other university courses just because their course will (most likely) land them a higher paid job at the end of it.
And what about those students who start a course, but either fail and are excluded from the course or withdraw themselves? Would they have to pay the graduate tax even though they have undertaken some study but not completed the course and gained the qualification they set out to obtain?

Arthurian

sh1305 wrote: »

And explain the other oppotunities to people. When I was in 6th form, we just got talked into going into university.

Perhaps Martin's push for finance education classes could help with this - pointing out salaries for various jobs and the associated training costs, including possibly missing the opportunity to start saving earning and saving earlier.

PassedAtFailing

I do love this type of announcement, making Vince Cable at least be mentioned somewhere. The same Vince Cable who is (was?) probably the most popular member of the Liberal Democrats. The same Liberal Democrats who 'wanted' to do away with tuition fees altogether.

And then mentioning Ed Balls! The same Ed Balls that very nearly lost his seat at the election and then went on to announce his interest in leading the Labour party. The man is nothing more than a chancer... and no Ed, I don't mean chancellor so don't even bother.

glider3560

glider3560 wrote: »

With the current system, you know upfront (i.e. before starting university) exactly how much your education will cost you. You know how much you'll have to pay back and can think of the repayments as an extra tax (if you like).

On the new proposed scheme, you won't know how much the degree will cost you. In addition, graduates who go on and get higher paid jobs will be penalised by having to pay higher "tuition fees" than those who don't earn as much.

And then how do you treat graduates who then go abroad? They don't pay tax in this country, so how would they pay this "tax"?

I've just thought of more to add to my post.

What about graduates who then go on and take higher degrees (e.g. Masters, PhD, teacher training, solicitors training etc) who have to pay for these courses themselves. They'll then be earning more and paying more graduate tax, not as a result of their first degree, but rather from the degree that they've paid for themselves.

Rafter

Problem for me is that it gives no incentive for a students to choose degrees that will be of future use to the country.

For example, if you want to study media studies or sports science you know that your degree is probably going to be subsidised by those doing medicine, engineering or business whose lifetime earnings and therefore graduate tax payments are going to be higher than yours.

I think the simplest way would be to charge students a basic rate of income tax c. 2% higher than a non graduate. Then at least once you start paying higher rate tax you graduate tax is effectively capped.

£50 per month to pay for your university education seems like a fair price to me, which would be what this would represent for your whole working life.

Should this really apply to former graduates too? Or in theory will it all balance out because general taxation will be lower in the future as a result of the new graduate tax and former graduates have been paying anyway through general taxation.

R.

devildog

I agree with Fang in that the middle income families get a raw deal(at least I think that was what was being said)
If a degree is the way to go to get a decent job why should middle income students have a huge loan at the end of their course when those from lower income families get more grants and so a smaller loan to pay back.
A degree is worth what it is regardless of social background so everyone should repay the same amount!!!!

But I note that this recent talk applies to tuition fees, no doubt they will not try and make the system fairer in relation to loans!

Fang_3

minerva_windsong wrote: »

I've read and listened to a lot of news reports on this, and I still don't understand the difference between the 'graduate tax' and the income-contingent system as it is now. The argument that teachers paying the same as surgeons is not fair doesn't wash with me, as the surgeon probably earns much more than the teacher and is therefore paying a higher amount of their loan back anyway. It seems to me like they're trying to fob this off as the people who can afford to pay it back subsiding the ones who can't, and that doesn't seem very fair to me.

I'd also like to know more about time frames - when do I start paying it back and how long for? - as well as who pays it back (all graduates, even the ones who got grants and didn't pay to go to uni? New graduates? People with outstanding loans to repay?) and what the limits are.

That doesn't make sense. Someone earning more would pay back less, as they would pay the loans off quicker with less interest.

divastrop

devildog wrote: »

I agree with Fang in that the middle income families get a raw deal(at least I think that was what was being said)
If a degree is the way to go to get a decent job why should middle income students have a huge loan at the end of their course when those from lower income families get more grants and so a smaller loan to pay back.
A degree is worth what it is regardless of social background so everyone should repay the same amount!!!!

But I note that this recent talk applies to tuition fees, no doubt they will not try and make the system fairer in relation to loans!

Are you talking about the maintenance grant vs the maintenance loan? I couldn't understand this part when I was applying for student finance. In fact, I still can't get my head around why the household income of people who are legally adults and are moving out of their parent's home anyway, is taken into account at all.

devildog

Quite agree divastrop. I honestly believe that ALL students attending university should pay the same regardless of their parents income in that any government funding should be repaid in full.
Basically you can apply for a non assessed loan which will qualify you for a percentage of the max loan available to everyone. For some bizzare reason if you have an income asessed loan(usually what the parents earn) and if their wage is low enough you are entitled to either a full or partial grant(free money) to top it up they make it up with a loan(but reduce the loan depending on what grant you get. Then of course if you get a fair grant you can also get uni bursaries too(more free money) Those students from middle income families receive little grant, no bursaries and a more substantial loan that needs to be repaid, and get this, those middle income families are not 'required' to contribute to their child's education.
It is not difficult to see which students get the raw end of the deal here.