Graduate tax ....

shillelagh · 15-07-2010, 15:10

Vince Cable has asked Lord Browne to have a look into this idea .. instead of getting a student loan to pay your way through university or college .. then paying it back when you get a job .. that you pay a graduate tax when you've got a job after uni .. which is at a higher rate. Somehow i dont think hes thought this through .. if a kid goes to uni .. then has to pay a higher rate tax when they get a job .. what happens if they take a job in another country .. and emigrate. But it might also put kids off going to uni .. having to pay a higher rate when they get a job afterwards .. especially as its hard work to get a job ... was reading something the other day about graduates not being able to get a job after uni ..

BBC News - Students to face higher costs as graduate tax proposed

BBC News - Graduate unemployment rate rises 25%, think tank says

could you imagine .. being at uni for 4 years .. couldnt get a job in your chosen field .. so you end up working at primark or maccydees .. basic rate .. and then having to pay a higher rate of tax .. because you went to uni?

MargaretR · 15-07-2010, 15:30

I can see many graduates moving abroad to work.
I have a grandson who spent 4 years getting a geology degree(working part-time whilst he did), then worked for a year to save enough to go back for another year to get a PHD masters.

When he has finished that I expect he will look for work abroad - no incentive to live here is there?

This tax will cause a 'brain drain'

andrewb · 15-07-2010, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by shillelagh

Vince Cable has asked Lord Browne to have a look into this idea .. instead of getting a student loan to pay your way through university or college .. then paying it back when you get a job .. that you pay a graduate tax when you've got a job after uni .. which is at a higher rate. Somehow i dont think hes thought this through .. if a kid goes to uni .. then has to pay a higher rate tax when they get a job .. what happens if they take a job in another country .. and emigrate. But it might also put kids off going to uni .. having to pay a higher rate when they get a job afterwards .. especially as its hard work to get a job ... was reading something the other day about graduates not being able to get a job after uni ..

BBC News - Students to face higher costs as graduate tax proposed

BBC News - Graduate unemployment rate rises 25%, think tank says

could you imagine .. being at uni for 4 years .. couldnt get a job in your chosen field .. so you end up working at primark or maccydees .. basic rate .. and then having to pay a higher rate of tax .. because you went to uni?

The NUS originally devised the graduate tax. They proposed taxing based on income so those with high incomes would pay more because it's taken out as a percentage but also they would increase the actual percentage number too.

Those earning less would pay less. They argued this would make it 'fairer' to those who go into professions such as teaching which benefits society and which need a degree but pay less well than other sorts of jobs.

This would alleviate some of the problems you describe.

Personally I think it's unfair to people who work hard, gain a good degree and go on to earn a high wage. They're effectively financing the degrees of students who go to university and fail.

I just can't see how a graduate tax would work. It's a 'risk free' option for many. Go to university, have a great time, and if you fail the successful ones will pay your tuition fees.

I believe it will create a large divide in universities. Some universities will charge large amounts of money up front as a way to avoid people paying a graduate tax. Those who are well educated, come from wealthy backgrounds and know they're going to graduate with a good degree will simply pay up front to avoid paying large amount of tax if they get a well paid job after university.

Another problem is that even if you do gain a 1st class degree at Oxford.. who is to say it has anything to do with your income after university? You might gain a degree in classics and go on to set up a business that has nothing to do with the original degree. Is it fair to tax the business owner large amounts because he gained a degree, over another business owner who didn't bother going to university?

cashman · 15-07-2010, 16:04

i agree it aint fair, but its your lot the " Coalition" thats gonna do it.

SamF · 15-07-2010, 16:05

Punish sucess - awesome idea.

Benipete · 15-07-2010, 16:08

There are some very devious people out there in the world of education innit.

heth · 15-07-2010, 16:20

paying the loan was the only reason i didnt bother to even try to go to uni

had nothing what so ever to do with the pub

jaysay · 15-07-2010, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by heth

paying the loan was the only reason i didn't bother to even try to go to uni

had nothing what so ever to do with the pub

Well if you didn't know to tick the box to stay logged on here, the pub was probably the best option

Margaret Pilkington · 15-07-2010, 17:58

while I accept that higher education must be funded...I think that this is not the way to go about it......Wasn't it the Labour government who wanted all children to get a university education, but without any thought to how this would be funded?...and also they did not take into consideration that some jobs are vital to society, but they do not require a degree to do them. Do you expect your refuse collector to have a degree?

Many graduates leave University with a huge millstone of debt around their necks, and with the current financial situation, a lot of them are not going to be earning the money to pay off the debts..and all the while the interest is accruing.

Vince Cable is suggesting that degrees are completed in 2 years instead of three. Making the study more intense.......having seen the work my daughter has done in three years I find this difficult to grasp.....compressing her studies into two years would have been crippling.

Maybe the answer is to get rid of the degrees in Media studies and the other degrees that appear to have little or no validity.

SamF · 15-07-2010, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Many graduates leave University with a huge millstone of debt around their necks, and with the current financial situation, a lot of them are not going to be earning the money to pay off the debts..and all the while the interest is accruing.

Student loans are interest free

Only any overdrafts will earn interest and even they tend to be quite generous - banks are kind to students because they shortly become the professionals who are supporting the bank.

The higher and further education systems are both flawed and variable tuition fees are not the answer.

Scrap the EMA for 16-18 year olds. From experience the difference between receiving EMA and not doing is having to get a weekend job whilst in college to pay for your nights out or having the tax payer do it. If the person is from such a background that they need the £30 a week EMA they can get a job to cover it, there is no reason for the tax payer to be doing it.

Similarly, there should be no grants or bursaries for degrees. At ~£3000 a year England provides some of the best value for money education in the world. Interest free loans should be made available to anyone wishing to go to university, removing any barrier to entry, but they should have to pay the reasonable amount to do so, at the age of 18 a person is independent and what financial clout, or lack of, their parents have should have no bearing on the funding available to the student.

Having to actually fund their own degree would make people think twice as to whether they really need that history of art degree from Liverpool Hope. There are too many people going to university due to the stigma of not having a degree, I live with 2 people doing degrees in Photography and 1 doing a degree in Embroidery, both are credible professions but a degree should not be needed to enter such a field, training and practical experience in the form on an apprenticeship should suffice.

I do a Computer Science degree at one of the top CS & Engineering departments in the country and what I am learning should not be taught by a university, it is all practical and whilst it is preparing me well for the job I am going into, it should not be the universities place to do this, it should be done whilst working for a company however when a company has a choice between an unexperienced 18 year old and a graduate who has effectively paid for the training the company should provide, the company is going to take the graduate everytime, laughing at the £50k they've saved.

The majority of professions should not require a degree however the chance of getting into a profession without one is near 0. This needs to change. Don't shorten degrees from 3 to 2 years, but scrap any degree that isn't academic. A degree is not for a vocational subject, there should be specific qualifications for those fields.

Make academia for academics and the problem of funding will go away.

Less · 15-07-2010, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamF

when a company has a choice between an unexperienced 18 year old and a graduate who has effectively paid for the training the company should provide, the company is going to take the graduate everytime, laughing at the £50k they've saved.

Although I disagree with some of what you say though not all, I will disagree with this statement.

An Inexperienced 18 year old will work cheaply whilst learning a trade hopefully earning money for his/her employer as they gain knowledge within the trade all the time being guided by the employer and getting used to the standards demanded of them.
The Graduate would come to the business with no real practical experience and no matter how good the qualifications gained are still needed to go through a learning curve to fit in with the work required.

The 18 year old will serve their time and can be of greater value than the graduate, I know this because I have helped apprentices with their training & also had to cope with the new graduate that thinks they don't need to be told anything because they have a fancier piece of paper than the apprentice gained with C&G's for example, but value for money?

Hmmm, give me the apprentice every time, they aren't as cocky, nor are they as insulted if mistakes are pointed out, the graduate arrives often demanding treatment beyond their experience and can be a real pain to train to be of best use to the company, also they are likely to lack any loyalty because this place is only going to be temporary until their ambition moves them they hope to better pastures.

Margaret Pilkington · 15-07-2010, 20:51

Some very good points there SamF....and I agree with your observation that many professions do not need to be supported by degree level study...that these professions would be better supported by actual hands on work...let's call this apprenticeship/internship....yes that is how, in the past, very many people learned their crafts........and it is still relevant to the markets and employers today...and we would keep our skilled young people instead of driving them away

blazey · 15-07-2010, 21:05

I don't think this is going to improve education in Britain and for that reason I'm out.

Enough people go to uni as it is because they don't appreciate how much debt they're getting into when they start and how difficult it is to get a job. Most just get bored of looking for graduate jobs, if they ever started to begin with, and go into ordinary bottom level jobs anyway. They're going for the experience, which is basically three years of having a great social life and attending a few lectures and seminars around it. Too many people lacking any real qualification for anything other than a piece of paper that says they could read books and answer a few questions on them. Well you do that throughout your life with or without a degree. This is why a huge proportion of graduates end up in standard jobs anyway. No matter how bad the job market is they were never good enough for a job of that level to begin with.

I think less people should be accepted into uni and then it wouldn't cost the government so much. Seeing as it is established that there aren't enough graduate level jobs to begin with and a lot of students aren't good enough for them anyway, I'd suggest they weren't good enough for uni to begin with either.

I'd also like to add that yes, it would be lovely to be able to go to university and learn for the sake of learning, but I'd also like to be able to drive a Ferrari for the sake of driving but sadly, these things in life cost money, ability and drive, no pun intended. If you haven't got them then you need to either work at getting the right things together to prove you have the real determination to succeed and be what is required, or you should just accept defeat and try to be satisfied with what you've got. Why should everyone pay for something that you COULD save towards doing with a few years hard work should you really genuinely want it.

And I know I got loans to pay for my education and that's lucky for me and all the rest of it, but I am still going to have to pay it back and pay tax from the decent job I get as a result. That's just life, paying back your own debts. But why should we pay so someone else can potentially just go to uni and think 'well it wasn't my money I've just wasted' if they don't work hard? It's just going to result in loads of students dossing around.

blazey · 15-07-2010, 21:09

Also, since when are student loans interest free? I got a letter from the student loans company early last year saying the interest was rising. They're only interest free whilst you are studying last I knew about it.

Edit:

Upon looking at the Direct Gov website it would appear that they have actually reduced interest to literally nothing since the credit crunch. I do keep my letters from the SLC somewhere though so I'll have to see if I can find the letter about interest that I got. I remember a lot of my friends being unhappy about it.

SamF · 15-07-2010, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Although I disagree with some of what you say though not all, I will disagree with this statement.

An Inexperienced 18 year old will work cheaply whilst learning a trade hopefully earning money for his/her employer as they gain knowledge within the trade all the time being guided by the employer and getting used to the standards demanded of them.
The Graduate would come to the business with no real practical experience and no matter how good the qualifications gained are still needed to go through a learning curve to fit in with the work required.

The 18 year old will serve their time and can be of greater value than the graduate, I know this because I have helped apprentices with their training & also had to cope with the new graduate that thinks they don't need to be told anything because they have a fancier piece of paper than the apprentice gained with C&G's for example, but value for money?

Hmmm, give me the apprentice every time, they aren't as cocky, nor are they as insulted if mistakes are pointed out, the graduate arrives often demanding treatment beyond their experience and can be a real pain to train to be of best use to the company, also they are likely to lack any loyalty because this place is only going to be temporary until their ambition moves them they hope to better pastures.

I apologise for the way I worded that statement, as I can see how it can be read not as I interpreted - my comment wasn't a matter of opinion, it is a fact that the majority of "professional" jobs require a degree for an entry level position. What you highlighted as the advantages of an apprenticeship/internship is exactly my point - it shouldn't be required that those positions are filled by graduates and yet it is.

And Blazey, free/low