Business Secretary Vince Cable has outlined plans for a graduate tax to replace tuition fees, with all University graduates paying back a small proportion of their income for a set period of time.

 

FINALLY a good, progressive idea from this government. I've thought that a graduate tax is the ideal solution for awhile now. I do think it's fair that people who've gone through Uni should pay back for their education, but it's ridiculous for someone who graduates yet only goes onto a low-paying job like a carer, while someone who goes onto become a doctor, should have to pay the same.

 

My only concern is that there's suggestions the graduate tax should last a lifetime - imo graduates should only have to pay it for a maximum of 15 years, at a rate of 0.25-2% of annual income.

dont know how it would work... its an assumption that all graduates will get jobs, not all do, what about women when they stop work to have/look after kids?

 

i reckon the current sytems best, you pay back exactly what you borrow. an extra tax on graduates could last alot longer and cost them more.

dont know how it would work... its an assumption that all graduates will get jobs, not all do, what about women when they stop work to have/look after kids?

But that's the whole point. If graduates aren't earning they won't be expected to pay anything at that time. Some people will end up paying more, others will pay less. If everyone ended up paying the same as now there wouldn't be much point in changing the system.

i reckon the current sytems best, you pay back exactly what you borrow. an extra tax on graduates could last alot longer and cost them more.

 

It's not an EXTRA tax, it will completely replace tuition fees.

 

 

But that's the whole point. If graduates aren't earning they won't be expected to pay anything at that time. Some people will end up paying more, others will pay less. If everyone ended up paying the same as now there wouldn't be much point in changing the system.

 

Exactly. If someone is unemployed for the whole 20 years that the graduate tax applies, they'll never have to pay a penny back. And that's what makes the idea so good - it's ridiculous that, as things stand, someone who is unemployed and someone who's on £150k in the City should have to pay exactly the same back.

It's not an EXTRA tax, it will completely replace tuition fees.

Exactly. If someone is unemployed for the whole 20 years that the graduate tax applies, they'll never have to pay a penny back. And that's what makes the idea so good - it's ridiculous that, as things stand, someone who is unemployed and someone who's on £150k in the City should have to pay exactly the same back.

 

yeah i know it replaces tuition fees

 

hmm... im not so sure that because someones worked damn hard both at uni then at work they should carry on paying beyond what they cost, thats really what i meant by extra tax,.wheres the incentive to get on if youre gonna be taxed beyond what they cost? theyll already be on a higher tax bracket anyway..

 

as i understand it, even if they are unemployed atm, they dont have to pay back anything until they earn over a certain ammount.. i might be wrong, i dunno,

In Scotland you only pay back your student loan when you earn over 15k p.a. We don't pay a cent for our tuition fees, and the SNP scraped the graduate endowment in Scotland [The only item in the Plus column for the SNP imo] So, my uni education costs me nothing. Well, it was going to cost me nowt, but i took out a loan last year to cover the massive hole in my finances thanks to my semester abroad. So the cost of my education is the interest on that.

 

Twice in 1 week i'm saying this, Thank god for the devolved government.

In England you don't have to pay back your loan until after you're earning 15k continually.

 

Graduate tax seems a good idea, bug the bigger problemat heart is that there's too many students.

In England you don't have to pay back your loan until after you're earning 15k continually.

 

Yeah, but eventually you'd have to pay off the same amount as someone who's on a £200k salary, even if you were only on £20k.

 

For instance, under the current system, someone who was unemployed for 20 years after graduating, if they finally got a low-paid job after that 20 years, £15k p.a., they'd still have mountains of debt to pay off. But under a graduate tax system, they'd know they wouldn't be weighed down by any extra costs.

Edited July 17, 201014 yr by Danny

bug the bigger problemat heart is that there's too many students.

 

I agree to an extent, I think the government should create more apprenticeships and things like that for young people who would be better off going down that sort of route than a University degree that wouldn't help them out much in their career path. But, as things stand, there's a crisis in youth unemployment, and it's going to get worse with the Coalition's cuts, which means that, if a person doesn't have a University degree, they're simply not going to get employed - so, as things stand, we can't start barring people from Uni or they won't have any serious career prospects at all.

Yeah, but eventually you'd have to pay off the same amount as someone who's on a £200k salary, even if you were only on £20k.

 

For instance, under the current system, someone who was unemployed for 20 years after graduating, if they finally got a low-paid job after that 20 years, £15k p.a., they'd still have mountains of debt to pay off. But under a graduate tax system, they'd know they wouldn't be weighed down by any extra costs.

 

..but the person on £200k would be paying considerably more tax anyway, thats my argument.

 

nothing else we all buy is effectively means tested... a gallon of petrol costs the same for an unemployed person as a billionairre, loaf of bread, bottle of wine whatever.

 

how would it work anyway? you might get two people working alongside eachother, one graduated, the other didnt...they earned their way up by hard work... both on the same wage but one would be paying more tax, would graduates be on a taxmans database?

 

personally speaking, id sooner know what im going to be paying, not pay an indeterminate figure for an indeterminate time.

i agree with Mushy, the way it is at the moment is fine, paying for what you got. With this if someone goes to uni and never gets a job that person would have had Uni for free but if someone went on to a high paid job they would end up paying a lot more money than what the course is worth.

i agree with Mushy, the way it is at the moment is fine, paying for what you got. With this if someone goes to uni and never gets a job that person would have had Uni for free but if someone went on to a high paid job they would end up paying a lot more money than what the course is worth.

Surely 'what the course is worth' is what it enabled them to do?

yes but say someone was studying medicine for the whole 7 years costing near 100k but then decides to go on the doll and not get a job that person would not pay anything and say someone studies for 3 years earning upwards of 80k on average would have to pay (saying a 5% tax and they work 30 years) 120k for about 21k worth of debt. It's just not fair.

yes but say someone was studying medicine for the whole 7 years costing near 100k but then decides to go on the doll and not get a job that person would not pay anything and say someone studies for 3 years earning upwards of 80k on average would have to pay (saying a 5% tax and they work 30 years) 120k for about 21k worth of debt. It's just not fair.

 

No-one DECIDES to go on the dole and not get a job. If you're on unemployment benefit and you don't apply for atleast 3 jobs a week (and provide proof), your benefits are cut.

Edited July 18, 201014 yr by Danny

I get really annoyed at these people who think that being on the dole is a choice. I graduated last year with a good degree and could not find a job until January. I have just found out that my contract has been terminated as the company is going through financial problems. I now have to go back on the dole and trust me after working my ass off for a degree this is the last thing I want to be doing.

 

Also, being on the dole is not what many people think it is like you have to tell them what jobs you are applying for and give them the information. Graduates have a harder position that a regular teen on the dole who has not been to uni. Places like shops and bars don't employ graduates and the places that do are too competitive. I had to fight hard to get the job that I got and then a few months later it is gone.

 

This graduate tax is ridiculous how about the government invests time and money into working with companies to ensure that graduates do not end up on the dole after uni.

I get really annoyed at these people who think that being on the dole is a choice. I graduated last year with a good degree and could not find a job until January. I have just found out that my contract has been terminated as the company is going through financial problems. I now have to go back on the dole and trust me after working my ass off for a degree this is the last thing I want to be doing.

 

Also, being on the dole is not what many people think it is like you have to tell them what jobs you are applying for and give them the information. Graduates have a harder position that a regular teen on the dole who has not been to uni. Places like shops and bars don't employ graduates and the places that do are too competitive. I had to fight hard to get the job that I got and then a few months later it is gone.

 

This graduate tax is ridiculous how about the government invests time and money into working with companies to ensure that graduates do not end up on the dole after uni.

 

no one said everybody goes on the dole by choice... i doubt any do after working so long. its just an analogy for discussions sake.

yes but say someone was studying medicine for the whole 7 years costing near 100k but then decides to go on the doll and not get a job that person would not pay anything and say someone studies for 3 years earning upwards of 80k on average would have to pay (saying a 5% tax and they work 30 years) 120k for about 21k worth of debt. It's just not fair.

 

... and thats my point, as i see it its just another way of overtaxing people who want to get on, as if these arnt already paying more tax being high earners.

don't be so naive thinking everybody on the dole is on it because they have to be. People can easily apply for jobs and not get them on purpose. And i didn't say everybody on the dole does it as most won't, i was just using it as an example.

don't be so naive thinking everybody on the dole is on it because they have to be. People can easily apply for jobs and not get them on purpose. And i didn't say everybody on the dole does it as most won't, i was just using it as an example.

 

 

I've heard that some people even go to interviews to please the JobCentre but ask the employer NOT TO GIVE THEM THE JOB but not to say anything to the DWP. :o

I've heard that some people even go to interviews to please the JobCentre but ask the employer NOT TO GIVE THEM THE JOB but not to say anything to the DWP. :o

 

You heard this where? In the Daily Mail?

 

 

don't be so naive thinking everybody on the dole is on it because they have to be. People can easily apply for jobs and not get them on purpose. And i didn't say everybody on the dole does it as most won't, i was just using it as an example.

 

Currently, you also have to go to training days if you've been unemployed for 6 months, although I think the Coalition is ending that due to their cuts fetish. While there's maybe a small minority of people on benefits who just can't be arsed getting a job, 95% of people on unemployment benefits actually want to work but can't find anything - which isn't exactly surprising considering we've just been through a recession, and it's going to get much, much worse with the cuts that are coming - estimates predict only 40% of people graduating now will be able to find a long-term job in the next 5 years.

 

...Which is exactly why a graduate tax is needed. Why should someone who's university course hasn't actually helped them with their career prospects be forced to shell out tens of thousands for something that hasn't even helped them? OTOH, if someone becomes a high-earning doctor thanks to a medical degree, clearly THEIR university course has helped them, so THEY should pay a lot back in return.

 

And btw, anyone who's earning £80k/yr would keep a lot more money than anyone who "chooses to go on the dole" even taking into account graduate tax, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever.