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

RedBern

DarkConvict wrote: »

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.

Exactly! There are hundreds of jobs you don't need 'paper' qualifications for - but for some reason the last government (and I think this new one) want 50%+ of the population to get degrees - WHY? It devalues the qualification - hence people doing post grad courses - and at the end there's no jobs.

.... which is why we should be lowering retirement age and clearing some space for youngsters to get promoted....... but that's another argument.;)

DarkConvict

Retirement ages should be scaled, i.e. You have to rack up a certain number of points. Say 45. Each year that passes you get a point, for most jobs. But if you have physical jobs like tree cutters/manual labours it is 1.1 points, and those who are unemployed it is 0.8 etc. Age has an affect on what we can do, but certain jobs were us down more. And finally make retirement optional. I think this would work best, the only problem is having to scale jobs. I mean most would be just 1, it would only be the exceptions that need to be scaled.

Back onto university, i totally agree, although i am agreeing with myself anyway Education at this level should really be worthwhile, I forgot about the years of boozing up. I actually only went out drinking less than 20 times in the 5 years i was studying. Not anti-social but it was not a big thing for me. Although i know those who went out more than 40 times in the first semester of the first year. Nevertheless they failed horribly.
Real courses for real jobs. Limit the places to courses based not just on the university but industry demand.
And save government money spent on funding degree and put it onto apprenticeships.
Maybe even do what they did to some degree like nursing/medical, have seperate funding. Make the more valueable degrees cheaper to get, and those with little job prospects to be more self funded.

I do not agree with completely self funding, as we have lost so much primary/secondary industries. We really are a tertiary nation, focusing on research, retail and services. We do need education at university level still, and it should not just be for the rich, it needs to be the talented and dedicated.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

buglawton wrote: »

Here's a thought: my student son's mobile bill is higher then my rent was as a student. And for part of his studies he had an an-suite bathroom.

Here's a thought: in most Universities, the en-suite has been chucked in the corner of the room usually reserved for the wardrobe. Bath university, for example. The main advantages being: no female students showering in a communal area feeling vulnerable and the University can charge significantly more because the room 'has an en-suite'

buglawton

Remember that currently in the UK, nearly 50% of GDP goes on govt spending.

So any argument coming from the govt that further education should be self-funded (but not, oddly enough, A-levels) is really an attempt to keep on taxing us up the chin while making parts of what was before included in the govt budget a self-funded 'extra'.

FATBALLZ

We already have a graduate tax, we just don't have one with an unlimited open ended liability like this joke of a policy being proposed. Everybody knows the issue with university spending being unaffordable - far too many degrees (dare say at least 50% by student numbers) are a massive waste of time, money and student potential to be productive by doing something more suitable.

We're supposed to be having an austerity drive in this country - doesn't that mean cut frivolous spending? Instead the attitude in this case is to plough even more money into stupid degrees by getting worthwhile students to subsidise them further rather than cutting them - because thats what we should be doing, cutting the waste.

Unfortunately this government looks like it has the same attitude to young people as the previous one - hammering the minority of students doing sensible and ultimately useful degrees with a big tax hike once they leave to pay for the wasters and avoid tax rises on the voting mass of baby boomers who took their free education and don't want to provide it for the next lot.

girleight@

I don't understand Martin at all! What we have is very different to a graduate tax. Those people with rich enough parents to pay all their fees and living costs directly end up getting a cheap loan funded by the government! Martin basically advises people to do this which is fair enough consumer advice but not really what we as tax payers ought to be funding.

The current system really only taxes the lower middle classes- too rich to get everything paid for by the state but not rich enough to get everything paid for by parents!

Obviously there are arguments for and against each system but I think when Martin says this isn't a political site he needs to be wary of claiming this is a simple semantic issue when it's actually pretty complex.

DarkConvict

I actually found it to be the other way round.

The students from the poor backgrounds had more help from parents than the rich ones, my school/collage friends that went to uni the few that had wealthy parents had to pay for everything themselves. Which meant they had to pay more and had to pay it themselves without the family helping.

Obviously this varies across the board. if i was the parent and could help i would to the extent that matched the circumstances.

girleight@

Well either way a graduate tax makes everyone pay whereas student loans are targeted most at those with the least parental help! Personally I think it can be unfair, especially for those whose parents refuse to support them as it's very hard to prove oneself to be estranged. This means that people whose parents could afford for them to go but won't pay are denied the opportunity (e.g. parents who disown their kids for being gay, parents who don't believe women should go to university).

There are arguments for both policies but I think Martin is mistaken to say we already have a graduate tax.

123babz

jd87 wrote: »

Don't worry I'm sure those of us south of the border will continue to pay for your free studies.

I am astonished at this post - what makes you think YOU pay for our studies in Scotland:mad:

[Deleted User]

so far I do not see anyone here who has mentioned the added value of doing a degree to the individual as well as society in general.

A uni course enables you to think critically, become exposed to new ideas, become an individual, meet new people from different parts of the country/world with different backgrounds, live somewhere new, be inspired by great work, break the bubble you were raised in. All these things are worth more than just a job.

as someone with an undergrad, masters, and a PhD what is wrong with learning for learnings sake. Does everything have to be for commercial gain? ie a better job at the end.

I took my loans, and have only just started paying them back after 9 years of education. I have now started working at a salary below my peers who I left school with and also thsoe with just an undergrad degree. I am not financially better off by going to uni so why should I pay a blanket tax just because I went to uni. Let me and all other students pay the dues and be done. A life long tax is just discrimination for wanting to better yourself in one way or another...not just by getting ajob.

I am already "behind" in life to my friends. ie mortgages, marriage, kids, cars, pension, etc etc because of having thios gap. I am happy as I got more out of uni than just a job, I learnt, I developed a way of life in analysing the world around me. But a Grad tax will mena that I will be burdoned for more years than required (I currently assess that it will take 15 years to pay off, my OH who is a teacher 25 years)

So what if people want to go do so called Mickey Mouse degrees. Good for them I am sure they are different people to when they went in. I did my studies in science and at a top uni so I am not defending these degress as it is what I did.


I went to state school, my parents had no qualifications both leaving school early, had they not given me the love for learning I would probably not wanted to go to uni, if I knew and they knew that I would be burdoned for life with added discriminatory tax I would not have considered going to uni. But a loan that I owe for a short term, which is fair, encouraged and allowed me to go to uni.

Fo those who say why should the state fund university. Why should the state fund schools for that matter if we dont value education. Learning should be a universal right for all. As for discriminatory taxes for those who use a public service, why dont we introduce a variale tax for those who go see a doctor more. I hardly ever go to a GP, not been in hospital but I pay for it. why dont we introduce higher taxes to people as they age or those with children, or smokers, drinkers or obese people. The will no doubt cost the state more than there input. Whats wrong with charging higher council tax to those who have kids so that the council can pay its teachers. Pay more if you produce more rubbish, you cost the council more. We should not have variable taxes based on use of services, but based on income, which has been stated graduates on the whole pay more back to.


Will this money taken in graduate tax be ring fenced for HE&FE funding, I have a feeling it will be creamed off to go fight wars or pay for duck houses.

As also said what about those who pay there own way? will they be taxed. SO the rich can pay even less tax from having old money to support learning. Another loophole for them. Also if this is a way to stop paying grad tax, I can see a niche for banks to offer cheap commercial loans to students (similar to the US) where the student borrows the cash and pays back at commercial rates, at least then you pay what you borrow, you know from the outset what you will be paying back and the length and you will reduce your tax burden in the future.

A lifetime graduate tax on all graduates irrespective of income is completely unfair, unethical and I hope it does not come in.

Sorry for rant and any spelling or incoherency.

phew