Graduate tax to replace tuition fees?

[JER]

From Ed Milliband's website

 

The Graduate Tax – a fair alternative

Posted on July 13th, 2010

 

 

I’ve been interested to see that the government is giving serious thought to introducing a Graduate Tax, rather than raising Tuition Fees.

 

The issue is coming to a head as Lord Browne is due to report on University funding in the autumn — and it’s possible that he could recommend that fees rise to £7,000 or even £10,000.

 

But the Graduate Tax is a fairer alternative, and one I’ve been arguing for for some time.

 

This is an important matter of principle. The supremacy of the market has extended too far into areas that should not be defined by commodity and exchange. But it is also a practical question. As fees rise further, less well-off as well as part-time students will be even less likely to apply to more expensive universities and so damage their opportunities. That does not fit in with the values of this party or this country.

 

Conversely, studies have shown that such a Graduate Tax, which would abolish fees but ask graduates to pay between 0.25% and 2% of their income over a 20-year period, could raise substantially more for Universities than the current system. It would prevent the burden being put unfairly on students and their families, and link to their ability to pay.

 

Those who believe in the future of our economy and the future of our young people, as I do, have a responsibility to come together and press for a fair and sustainable future for our Universities. That is the sort of Labour Party I will lead, offering real alternatives, bringing together the forces of progressive politics and turning our guiding values into real action for people.

 

Login

 

 

 

More here

 

Could students pay their way through university with a graduate tax?

 

Author: Gary Gibbon|Posted: 6:56 pm on 12/07/10

Category: Gary Gibbon on Politics | Tags: graduate tax/ Lord Browne/ university tuition fees

I hear that, behind the scenes, the Coalition is giving serious thought to going for a graduate tax rather than going ahead with raising tuition fees. Lord Browne reports on university funding this autumn and has been widely reported to be thinking of calling for the £3,225 per year tuition fees cap to be raised.

 

Lib Dem leaders had enough trouble getting their party to swallow a postponement of the abolition of tuition fees in the manifesto (it ended up put off to what some thought was a fairly meaningless distant horizon). The last thing they want to do is find themselves defending a giant hike in tuition fees.

 

The coalition agreement gave Lib Dem MPs an opt-out allowing them to abstain if they can’t accept the government response to Lord Browne.

 

So in the interests of both coalition parties, but particularly the Lib Dems, the government is looking seriously at switching to a graduate tax. Four out of the five Labour leadership candidates are talking about a similar shift, so there would be political cover of some kind. Even the National Union of Students has been sniffing round its own preferred version of a graduate tax.

This is an important matter of principle. The supremacy of the market has extended too far into areas that should not be defined by commodity and exchange. But it is also a practical question. As fees rise further, less well-off as well as part-time students will be even less likely to apply to more expensive universities and so damage their opportunities. That does not fit in with the values of this party or this country.

 

Conversely, studies have shown that such a Graduate Tax, which would abolish fees but ask graduates to pay between 0.25% and 2% of their income over a 20-year period, could raise substantially more for Universities than the current system. It would prevent the burden being put unfairly on students and their families, and link to their ability to pay.

 

Those who believe in the future of our economy and the future of our young people, as I do, have a responsibility to come together and press for a fair and sustainable future for our Universities. That is the sort of Labour Party I will lead, offering real alternatives, bringing together the forces of progressive politics and turning our guiding values into real action for people.

 

 

Sounds like a better option than raising fees to 10k a year

[Antynwa]

Not a bad idea on the face of it.

 

But then it depends on your income. I mean if for example after 15 years you're on a very decent wage. You're getting taxed higher, and you've got potentially 2% coming out of your wage packet which isn't that fair in all honesty, when you could have potentially paid off a fair share already.

 

I'm starting my second year in September. So what would that mean for the loans I've already taken out? Would I still have to pay them back as it is the current system, or would it be diverted.

 

It doesn't sound too evil to be honest.

[Strontium]

Either way, it's making people pay for their education, which is something I oppose.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Either way, it's making people pay for their education, which is something I oppose.

 

Yeah, I agree. However, considering that the country is 'totally fucked', we can't afford it.

 

On a more serious note, I think good education and healthcare, paid by the tax payer for all to use, should be a must. If third world countries like Cuba can manage it, so must we.

[RJ Fan club]

Not a bad idea on the face of it.

 

But then it depends on your income. I mean if for example after 15 years you're on a very decent wage. You're getting taxed higher, and you've got potentially 2% coming out of your wage packet which isn't that fair in all honesty, when you could have potentially paid off a fair share already.

 

I'm starting my second year in September. So what would that mean for the loans I've already taken out? Would I still have to pay them back as it is the current system, or would it be diverted.

 

It doesn't sound too evil to be honest.

 

I'd imagine they'd start it for new starters and roll it on from there, if it ever gets going.

 

Like they did with the original loans, then the tutition fees. If that's the case you'd just continue as you are.

 

I'm uncomfortable with a graduate tax, but then I was uncomfortable with higher education not being free. I recognise that we probably can't afford free education now given the financial situtation and the numbers that attend Universit,y so there no need for that debate with me.

[Anny Road]

Why should the taxpayer subsidise the non academic to go to some shite university, spend three years drinking cider, studying womens studies and basket weaving, leaving with a third and going on to work in Pizza hut.

By all means give funding to courses where the country badly needs the skills but imo far to many people go to uni when they should be learning a trade.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Why should the taxpayer subsidise the non academic to go to some shite university, spend three years drinking cider, studying womens studies and basket weaving, leaving with a third and going on to work in Pizza hut.

By all means give funding to courses where the country badly needs the skills but imo far to many people go to uni when they should be learning a trade.

 

Remind me, what was your degree in again?

[Anny Road]

IT and Psychology. Complete waste of time.

[Antynwa]

Why should the taxpayer subsidise the non academic to go to some shite university, spend three years drinking cider, studying womens studies and basket weaving, leaving with a third and going on to work in Pizza hut.

By all means give funding to courses where the country badly needs the skills but imo far to many people go to uni when they should be learning a trade.

 

I'm training to be a teacher in computing.

 

Do I not deserve some help off the tax payer to get me to somewhere I can not afford to on my own?

 

The financial burden for me and my family is quite taxing, but considering if I had sacked off Uni and got a job...well there wouldn't be a job to get.

 

The fact that financial burdens are there pass or fail is ridiculous.

[Anny Road]

I'm training to be a teacher in computing.

 

Do I not deserve some help off the tax payer to get me to somewhere I can not afford to on my own?

 

The financial burden for me and my family is quite taxing, but considering if I had sacked off Uni and got a job...well there wouldn't be a job to get.

 

The fact that financial burdens are there pass or fail is ridiculous.

 

I am not sure if there are shortages in your field but I would imagine these skills you will acquire will be extremely useful both to you vocationally and to the country as a whole. IMO this type of study should be encouraged be that through grants or the tax system.

[RJ Fan club]

IT and Psychology. Complete waste of time.

 

That's an ace mix.

 

Should have done Dental Technician and Media though.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

IT and Psychology. Complete waste of time.

 

IT isn't a waste of time for people in IT though. Psychology isn't a waste of time for psychologists. The problem isn't people doing degrees, it's choosing the wrong degrees and choosing too early.

[Anny Road]

That's an ace mix.

 

Should have done Dental Technician and Media though.

 

I chose occupational psychology, so it was essentially personnel management which actually fitted in quite well with IT.

I should have done Drama and maths.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's an ace mix.

 

Should have done Dental Technician and Media though.

 

Or Politics, Philosophy and Technotronics.

[Antynwa]

I know a few people that have took courses, for the sake of taking courses. I mean no offence to those who want to do history, or who take a keen interest in it. But I know a few people who are just taking the piss with it.

[Anny Road]

IT isn't a waste of time for people in IT though. Psychology isn't a waste of time for psychologists. The problem isn't people doing degrees, it's choosing the wrong degrees and choosing too early.

 

Totally agree mate. The problem is I was allowed onto the psych course with pretty average GCSE results on the basis that I was a bit older and had achieved in a career. There was no way I was ever bright enough to become a clinical psychologist, yet I was offered the modules.

I did a degree any degree to move on in work, just for the bit of paper. I am sure a lot do the same.

[RJ Fan club]

Or Politics, Philosophy and Technotronics.

 

This degree is, this degree is technotronics...

 

[YOUTUBE]E46WkMDtVLM[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

At 18, I would have done that, so I could do that in the student union.

 

Goes to show that I should not have been picking a degree at 18.

[RJ Fan club]

I chose occupational psychology, so it was essentially personnel management which actually fitted in quite well with IT.

I should have done Drama and maths.

 

You could have been the star of Numbers or Good Will Hunting.

 

Scrap that, you would never have been as good as Affleck*

 

 

*yes I know Damon's character is the maths genius, just doesn't fit in with the general Affleck appreciation vibe

[Tom R]

The best thing to do would be to stop about 98% of people even bothering going to university in the first place.

 

it's pretty much a complete waste of time on all levels except for social ones.

 

Don't. Bother.

[Anny Road]

Great stuff RJ loved this stuff back in the day. Get down to the quad early and all that

repped

 

[YOUTUBE]-50fhqD3HtA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[melons]

Why should the taxpayer subsidise the non academic to go to some shite university, spend three years drinking cider, studying womens studies and basket weaving, leaving with a third and going on to work in Pizza hut.

By all means give funding to courses where the country badly needs the skills but imo far to many people go to uni when they should be learning a trade.

 

the thing is most of those courses are over subscribed, then the lovely cuts on offer mean you've no job at the end of it ,despite there being x shortages of teachers, nurses and so on.

 

I know a few people that have took courses, for the sake of taking courses. I mean no offence to those who want to do history, or who take a keen interest in it. But I know a few people who are just taking the piss with it.

 

I am actually one of those people, i didn't get on the course i wanted. Did another that suited my circumstances for that reason alone. When i'm done i plan on re applying for the original course. If i don't get on it then, well errr i'll just do mental health nursing or something.

 

It's just juggling figures for the powers that be.

[Anny Road]

Melons if more resources went towards developing core subjects I suggest there would be more places. Also it is easy for me to pull up the drawbridge after I have had my education but I honestly believe only those with a firm academic record should be going to university straight from school.

 

It should be an option for mature students to go like what happened to me but in this instance a financially contribution should be expected.

 

Most youngsters would benefit more from apprenticeships and vocational college. I am not talking about shit jobs here either, some of the best paid mates of mine never went to uni after school but did engineering courses and eventually degrees paid for by their employer.

 

Universities should be smaller, of a higher standard whilst mainstream education and links to employers are expanded.

[Whelan]

Education does need looking at, the focus on a narrow Academic avenue is clearly a disadvantage to quite a few. And we all agree there is a shortage of skills, which is where the re focus on education should be. IMO.

 

But I would like a Graduate tax, and I think, it should also be regressive to anyone who graduated in the last 20 years i.e. me! Maybe, a % point per every five years, basically so that people like me who enjoyed a free education and have benefitted from it, contribute to the continuation of it.

 

Education is not free, where do you think HEFCE gets it's money! It isn't all funded by research, your taxes pay towards the Higher Education system as it is, a Graduate Tax would just make it a little bit more focussed and a little bit more targetted. And will, also end students finishing their degree with a financial chain around their necks.

[Whelan]

Melons if more resources went towards developing core subjects I suggest there would be more places. Also it is easy for me to pull up the drawbridge after I have had my education but I honestly believe only those with a firm academic record should be going to university straight from school.

 

It should be an option for mature students to go like what happened to me but in this instance a financially contribution should be expected.

 

Most youngsters would benefit more from apprenticeships and vocational college. I am not talking about shit jobs here either, some of the best paid mates of mine never went to uni after school but did engineering courses and eventually degrees paid for by their employer.

 

Universities should be smaller, of a higher standard whilst mainstream education and links to employers are expanded.

 

Can't say that I disagree with any of that. Basically I think the likes of JMU should have stay a Polly, I see no reason why we have technically 4 Universities within Merseyside.

[RJ Fan club]

Education does need looking at, the focus on a narrow Academic avenue is clearly a disadvantage to quite a few. And we all agree there is a shortage of skills, which is where the re focus on education should be. IMO.

 

But I would like a Graduate tax, and I think, it should also be regressive to anyone who graduated in the last 20 years i.e. me! Maybe, a % point per every five years, basically so that people like me who enjoyed a free education and have benefitted from it, contribute to the continuation of it.

 

Education is not free, where do you think HEFCE gets it's money! It isn't all funded by research, your taxes pay towards the Higher Education system as it is, a Graduate Tax would just make it a little bit more focussed and a little bit more targetted. And will, also end students finishing their degree with a financial chain around their necks.

 

Except it wasn't free in the last 20 years. Student Loans started in early 1990's. So pretty much anybody who has attended starting from about 1991 has had to fund some part of it.

 

yeah okay those from 1990 - 1997 got off pretty lightly in comparison. But where do you stop backdating? go back to the 60's when there was full grants etc. and start taking money back from those?