, 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.

 

... (again, as you have dodged this point)... they DO through much higher income taxes anyway...

You heard this where? In the Daily Mail?

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.

 

that has nothing to do with my argument.

 

I know what needs to be done to go on the doll as i was on it for a month but then got a job.

 

At the moment a person doesn't have to pay anything back until they earn over 15k a year and even then they can pay back what they want and after a certain amount of time (i can't remember how long) if the debt hasn't been paid fully the remaining debt is forgotten as it were. I think this way is perfectly fine. Why should someone who is on so much money a year pay a lot more than someone else who is on lower even if they do the same course?

... (again, as you have dodged this point)... they DO through much higher income taxes anyway...

 

also their student debt will be much bigger for the longer courses.

Why should someone who is on so much money a year pay a lot more than someone else who is on lower even if they do the same course?

 

Because they'll still end up with more money than the person on a lower income even after graduate tax.

Because they'll still end up with more money than the person on a lower income even after graduate tax.

 

and? how is that fair? They both did the same course therefore run up the same (if not similar) costs, why should one person pay more for it than the other?

and? how is that fair? They both did the same course therefore run up the same (if not similar) costs, why should one person pay more for it than the other?

 

Like I said before, it should depend on how much real value they get out of the course, how much their course actually helps them. If someone's degree doesn't help them get anything more than a low-paid job, why they should they have to pay thousands for something that hasn't helped?

and? how is that fair? They both did the same course therefore run up the same (if not similar) costs, why should one person pay more for it than the other?

But our parents all pay different amounts for our school education depending on earnings. Why should university education be different?

But our parents all pay different amounts for our school education depending on earnings. Why should university education be different?

 

it isnt... higher earners already pay more tax.

it isnt... higher earners already pay more tax.

 

But the higher income tax doesn't currently go towards University education, that's the point... all other public services are funded by each individual contributing something relative to their income, so, as Suedehead says, why should University be any different? When we have an operation on the NHS, the cost of that operation isn't given to us as a lump sum in debt, you gradually pay off the cost of that operation via income tax... and the same principle should apply to University education, everyone shouldn't have to pay the same amount back when they will have vastly varying incomes. "Steve's A Mess" keeps talking about the fact that a high-earning graduate and a low-earning graduate got the same education so they should have to pay back exactly the same, but that's completely against the social welfare principles we as a country apply to our other public services.

...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.

The thing with top-up fees though is that you don't even pay it back until you're earning £15,000 a year - then you start paying back £60 a month. If you haven't paid it off within 25 years then it's written off. All I see from a graduate tax is a lower threshold for the chance to start charging and even more payments from everyone, hence my opposition to it. A nice idea in principle, but the coalition is using it to effectively price the lower-income brackets out of education.

I thought the LibDems wanted to work towards the Scottish system where you don't pay any tuition fees.

 

 

Scrapping the Graduate Endowment fee [about £2000, would be closer to £2,800 when i graduated] was the reason the SNP won the election making a University education free for all Scottish and EU students [Obviously excluding the English, Welsh and Northern Irish] Even then, it's still cheaper to get a degree at a Scottish Uni than it is at one in England/Wales. Taking into account our extra year!

But the higher income tax doesn't currently go towards University education, that's the point...

 

who says? the unis are funded out of the public purse arnt they? ie the taxpayers. that has been students argument for as long as i can remember and why in the past they got grants. even i got a grant back in the 70's to go to college because it was looked on as an investment by governments, knowing theyll more then get their money back in higher taxes.

 

god to think what we get more taxed on now compared to when i was 20...