'Is it time for a graduate tax?' poll discussion

user_name_7

I’m guessing most of those in favour of graduates paying a higher tax permanently are probably claiming a nice array of benefits.

The idea is wrong and clearly stupid!

[Deleted User]

If a graduate tax is introduced, will a tiered benefit system be introduced, which gets better the more education you progress through?

The_MoneySavingKid

olly300 wrote: »

Just like to point out the NUS supports graduate tax.

This is from their website - http://www.nus.org.uk/en/Campaigns/Funding-Our-Future/6-Big-Myths-about-Graduate-Tax/



There is more on their website to burst other myths.

In the NUS proposal....does that not mean their idea of it? not what government may be thinking of.

suited-aces

Excellent idea, people who do worthwhile degrees like accountancy and medicine (and therefore earn more) have to pay more tax to subsidise the degrees of dossers who go and take 5 years to scrape a pass in a 3 year liberal arts course.

With this sort of message being given out, is it any wonder our economy is in the toilet?

The_MoneySavingKid

suited-aces wrote: »

Excellent idea, people who do worthwhile degrees like accountancy and medicine (and therefore earn more) have to pay more tax to subsidise the degrees of dossers who go and take 5 years to scrape a pass in a 3 year liberal arts course.

With this sort of message being given out, is it any wonder our economy is in the toilet?

I don't like your attitude, as what you are saying if I don't take one of your approved subjects, which I may have no interest in or be capable of. What then? I'm classed as a dosser. Thanks.

But anyway, I think it would work on the basis that those who pay more would be paying for typically more expensive courses. Therefore they reap better benefits of earning more, why shouldn't someone who goes for a career that pays more, pay more for it too. That makes sense to me.

suited-aces

The_MoneySavingKid wrote: »

I don't like your attitude, as what you are saying if I don't take one of your approved subjects, which I may have no interest in or be capable of. What then? I'm classed as a dosser. Thanks.

But anyway, I think it would work on the basis that those who pay more would be paying for typically more expensive courses. Therefore they reap better benefits of earning more, why shouldn't someone who goes for a career that pays more, pay more for it too. That makes sense to me.

Care to elaborate?

Why shouldn't they pay more for it? They already do, it's called income tax. I'm asking why it should be skewed further so a person who does medicine has to pay more for their than a person doing a degree which contributes very little to society.

You are very, very selfish if you expect to get a degree in something which you have a passing interest in (ie, an excuse to get to uni for drinking binges) subsidised by someone who has slogged and slogged for something a medical degree, which society will benefit greatly from.

The_MoneySavingKid

suited-aces wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Why shouldn't they pay more for it? They already do, it's called income tax. I'm asking why it should be skewed further so a person who does medicine has to pay more for their than a person doing a degree which contributes very little to society.

You are very, very selfish if you expect to get a degree in something which you have a passing interest in (ie, an excuse to get to uni for drinking binges) subsidised by someone who has slogged and slogged for something a medical degree, which society will benefit greatly from.

By that I mean the actual cost to university of teaching it, from what I am aware, science based courses have the highest costs to the universities and so that cost should be paid for by the student wishing to take that course. And that should apply for any course.

I don't do the sterotypes, I resent that you assume I am or will be that sort of person.
(ie, so I can somewhat have an enjoyable career with a topic I chose)
I would work so I can enjoy what I do, so I apologise if that is so wrong to want to do. But to me that is logical for one to choose something which some form of pleasure can be gained from.

suited-aces

Wasn't mean to be personal, for "you are", read "one is".

Degenerate

starlakid wrote: »

There's a lot of talk on here about degrees which are 'good for society'. All education is good for society. University not only gives students knowledge in their chosen subject but also enables them to learn how to live independently and to be able to communicate/interact with those outside of their usual social circle. Going to university throws you into a mixed bag of people helping cross societal and national boundaries.

University is not required to learn life skills. Getting a job achieves all the same things, arguably better, whilst also contributing rather than costing the taxpayer.

suited-aces

Exactly degenerate, I know too many people who went to a handy course for the craic of going to uni, just to delay getting a job by 3 or 4 years, and when the time came to get a job, they would just harp on about transferable skills they gained from copying mates' notes in between drinking binges.

I went and studied hard in a pretty dry degree, to gain skills directly relevant to my career path, and subsequently have benefited from that. Why should I now be expected to pay for my degree, AND subsidise theirs?