MSE News: Government proposes graduate tax

Pont

As others have already mentioned this is a totally ill thought out proposal (surprise, surprise).

1) Not all students need outside finance to take their degrees. Some have saved prior to studying, some have doting grandparents etc. Will these students be subject to the graduate tax?

2) Those targeted by Cable, hospital consultants, city lawyers etc, already pay more 'graduate tax' than teachers and nurses over their working lives - it's called the higher tax threshold.

3) High achievers (high earners?), which this country sorely needs right now, will surely leave en masse after graduation. Who's going to stay to be subjected to 50%+ taxation?

4) This policy is going to deter potential undergraduates from attending university. Bingo! Perhaps this is what Vince wants! Maybe he has finally woke up and realised the desire that 70% of our young people attend university is a) Unsustainable b) Laughable and c) Worthless.

If I knew then what I know now....................................

snugglepet20

The actual problem here is that there are too many people at university. I hate to say it but not everyone is a genius and these poor kids are seduced into going to university when they blatantly do not have the brains and they end up in debt because of it.

Degrees have been devalued and I have lost count of the number of people I know who are working in low paid admin or bar jobs who are graduates. If there were less places available funding them would not be an issue and they could be allocated according to industrial demand for each subject. The sucessful applicants would then be the cream of the crop and in high demand as graduates.

It would also stop employers from asking for graduates to do jobs where a degree is not needed and encourage more job-based training and skilled trades which is what we actually need. Yes its nice for 80% of people to go to uni etc. but it is a fantasy that 80% of people are that intelligent. It's time to face reality and stop giving these people nothing but false hope, broken dreams and a mountain of debt.

In summary, drastically cut university admissions and scrap tuition so that applications are based on academic merit and not bank balances!

Simon11

I'm still waiting for the goverment to give us the tax rate they wish to impose.... If its 1%, its a different matter to 5%.

I will comment once our silly goverment "make" up a rate:p

jojo90_2

Same old same old.

Punish those who work hard and create success for themselves whilst rewarding the slackers by giving them our hard earned money via taxes.

Why should I fund someone who chose to do a mickey mouse degree, came out with a 'pass', and simply had a 3 year drinking session with their mates? I know PLENTY of those people and the majority are stuck in low income temping jobs.

Nice to know Vince wants us to pay for their 3 year jolly while they 'find themselves'.

I'm asuming this isn't going to be applied retrospectively given I've already paid my dues.

Totally unfair. Everyone has an equal opportunity going into university and it's up to THEM what use they make of it based on a FAIR and EQUAL amount to pay.

Simon11

Should we mention that the PMs, who have a degrees, didn't actually have to pay anything for it atall in fees?

The_One_Who

Simon11 wrote: »

Should we mention that the PMs, who have a degrees, didn't actually have to pay anything for it atall in fees?

So? They were going at a time when higher education was sustainable. There weren't anywhere near the number of students then and a degree was actually worth something.

Whilst I think this is a bad idea, there really needs to be more information about the plans released before we can fully judge it.

bassitt74

i'm a higher education student going into my final year in sept. yes the tuition fees are high and yes they will inevitably continue to go up.

in a nut shell, i get a student loan to cover fees and living costs while i'm studying (and as long as the loans cover the fees etc as they rise, i see no problem).

then i get to pay all this back at a cheap % rate and only as a percentage of earning over a set limit. the more i earn, the more i pay back and quicker.

personally i think its the deal of the century and don't see much wrong with doing it this way to educate myself.

why then do my supposed betters think they can pull the wool over my eyes by calling the same thing by a different name to disguise the fact they want to hide increased costs. call a spade a spade!

just how long would we be paying this tax for anyway? will it work out more expensive over the long term than the current system. and what's to stop the government adding on a few more years to pay every so often. they've added years to the age of retirement simply because we now live longer and its costing more money.

the only other way for paying for your educational costs is for parents to set up dedicated savings accounts for this purpose, either when the child is born or when they start school. (i'm sure Martin has covered compound interest with us). yes, it is what they do in the USA.

minerva_windsong

Fang wrote: »

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

When I said 'more', what I meant was that there would be more money coming out of their pay packet in one year. If we're saying a surgeon's salary is £100,000 and a teacher's is £25,000 (OK, I may be being wildly inaccurate but it is just an example), and each pays back 9% of their earnings over £15,000, then the surgeon pays back 9% of £85,000 - £7,650 - and the teacher pays back 9% of £10,000 - £900. So it will take the teacher longer to pay back their loan but the surgeon will be paying back the bigger amount in the course of a year.

Oldernotwiser

bassitt74 wrote: »

the only other way for paying for your educational costs is for parents to set up dedicated savings accounts for this purpose, either when the child is born or when they start school. (i'm sure Martin has covered compound interest with us). yes, it is what they do in the USA.

You're not from a lower income family, I assume!

Fang_3

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're not from a lower income family, I assume!

It's my experience that these lower income families could choose to save money for their children's education, but won't.