"We already have a graduate tax - just a better version" blog discussion

not_loaded

“…except you won’t only repay what you owe.”

Hmm…

How on Earth could THAT ever happen under the Conservatives?

bramblejam

What I'd like to know, is if all new graduates have to pay this tax and the rationale is that, on average, graduates earn more than non-graduates, will all women get a tax rebate on the grounds that there is a 12.2% gender pay gap?
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167

I couldn't find the stats for graduate pay, loads of different ways of measuring it but I didn't see one by educational level:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=15313

Waiting for Vince to give me 12.2% off my tax bill:T:T:T

Liz :rotfl::rotfl:

Louisdf

How is it fair that someone who gets a grant, goes on to earn £200,000 a year and doesnt have to pay anything towards their HE. However, someone who doesnt qualify for grants due to to their parents income, and earns £16,000 a year has to pay everything back.

RedBern

Surely we already have a graduate tax already - you earn a lot of money and you get taxed on that amount.

Perhaps a way forward would be to have fewer uni places, not everyone needs to get a degree, there should be more vocational work, and fewer degree places.

What makes me sick about these suggestions is that the people making them had the benefit of a totally free education, direct grant grammar schools, loans at university and no tuition fees. But they're unwilling to see others benefit the way they did! Education is a right - and should be free, the country needs to find ways of paying for this.

Oldernotwiser

RedBern wrote: »

Surely we already have a graduate tax already - you earn a lot of money and you get taxed on that amount.

Perhaps a way forward would be to have fewer uni places, not everyone needs to get a degree, there should be more vocational work, and fewer degree places.

What makes me sick about these suggestions is that the people making them had the benefit of a totally free education, direct grant grammar schools, loans at university and no tuition fees. But they're unwilling to see others benefit the way they did! Education is a right - and should be free, the country needs to find ways of paying for this.

If we went back to a situation where only 10% of the population went to university then we might be able to fund it in the way we used to. (And, personally, I don't think that would be a bad thing!)

Oldernotwiser

Louisdf wrote: »

How is it fair that someone who gets a grant, goes on to earn £200,000 a year and doesnt have to pay anything towards their HE. However, someone who doesnt qualify for grants due to to their parents income, and earns £16,000 a year has to pay everything back.

However low your parents' income, you'll still have to take out both Tuition and Maintenance Loans.

In your second example, someone only earning 16,000 pa would never pay everything back as the interest on loans of 20,000 would normally be higher than the 90pa that they would pay.

yellowlawn

I don't understand why the state should pay for any further education like University. If you want to educate yourself further, you should pay for yourself. Equally no graduate taxation or loans. And it will certainly put a stop to what some graduates do of 'boozing up' for a couple of years.

chickenboy

I agree with many that have already said this - too many mickey mouse courses! It is always stated as a great aim that every child should have a university education -but *why*???? It has meant too many silly courses which don't have a job at the end of them or any great intellectual development, and at the same time we see a decrease in the number of apprenticeships and a shortage of plumbers. End result is enormous fees to get into crowded universities, ranks of jobless graduates, and Daily Mail readers upset that we import too many Polish workers.

The solution is simple, slim down the spending on universities! Turn some of those new universities back into polytechnics and bring back proper courses! We need home-grown plumbers (who will pay tax here and spend their money here, and non-degree educated nurses who are actually happy to clean the patients and the floors)

RedBern

yellowlawn wrote: »

I don't understand why the state should pay for any further education like University. If you want to educate yourself further, you should pay for yourself. Equally no graduate taxation or loans. And it will certainly put a stop to what some graduates do of 'boozing up' for a couple of years.

Because 'the State' needs people who are educated to serve 'the state' and the citizens of that country. We needs doctors, teachers, dentists, - how would we get people into these positions?

We don't need highly qualified plumbers, nurses, road sweepers, dustbin men or shop assistants. Their can get qualifications, but these would be vocational, whilst in work and would be related to their job.

DarkConvict

I still think the issue is more with the government wanting people to have university education. Courses are available, they have point requirements and limited places.

What would be better in my opinion is courses to be more like those in say social services. You have a mandatory interview, you are asked about previous experience, future expectations, what type of job are you after. People goto univeristy because they are expected to, not because they need to.

Bringing back the point of apprenticeships, I do computing but what i call "real" jobs as I was brought up, plumber, electrician builder etc. etc. Really need to be brought up in as apprenticeships.
Probably only 50% of my friends that actually have jobs needed their degree to get them, and then a small section have decided to carry onto post-graduate courses in my opinion without thinking if they need them.