Student fees, appropriate charges

[spooky3]

...

 

The UK may have the fourth largest economy in the world but it still faces a chronic skills shortage that is affecting key services and hampering economic progress in a number of fields. "The UK is a fantastic place to work and develop for those with the skills we need," Immigration Minister Liam Byrne says.

 

What are those sought after skills?

 

...

 

I personally think the new / current fee proposals are quite fair for all. Yes they could be a whole lot better (from old threads you'll know i'd ideally like to see a free system), but I also wonder if this system puts a thought in the minds of the ones not dedicated enough to complete the course and wasting theirs and the tax payers money and time.

 

We have enough people, but just not enough who have developed far enough to be deemed as useful...

[spooky3]

I have always wanted to teach but I am too scared of the evil kids, ...

 

It's not the fear of the kids themselves, just the protection against falling foul of alleged accusations.

 

LOL, I always said, if there were cameras in all classrooms, i'd do it! But then that's another debate, upon which I have views from both sides of the fence.

[dosxuk]

Just been reading the BBC's Tuition fees and graduate tax: What's the difference? article, and one bit stood out for me:

Will students be able to pay back loans early?

 

Those who can afford it will be able to pay their own university fees up front, avoiding accruing any debt at all. But the government is consulting on penalties for early payments of loans, arguing students should not be able to "buy themselves out" of paying interest.

 

Surely not allowing students, who are able to pay up front, to pay up front, is grossly unfair.

 

I still support the idea of a Graduate tax (starting at the national average wage, with existing loans wiped out, but with the amount already paid off being used to cover the tax payments, and imposed on all University level graduates, not just future ones) over the increased tuition fees, but I know that would never get through a parliament almost entirely consisting of graduates who've never had to pay for their education.

[spooky3]

Just been reading the BBC's Tuition fees and graduate tax: What's the difference? article, and one bit stood out for me:

...

 

That's always been there and a point of contention. Even though I agree a penalty seems right, in similar cases you wouldn't.

 

For instance I recently bought an item from a weekly payment store, I always paid back more than was required, and then settled early, which avoided part of the interest originally calculated as the projected final cost.

[llamatron]

Just been reading the BBC's Tuition fees and graduate tax: What's the difference? article, and one bit stood out for me:

 

 

Surely not allowing students, who are able to pay up front, to pay up front, is grossly unfair.

 

I still support the idea of a Graduate tax (starting at the national average wage, with existing loans wiped out, but with the amount already paid off being used to cover the tax payments, and imposed on all University level graduates, not just future ones) over the increased tuition fees, but I know that would never get through a parliament almost entirely consisting of graduates who've never had to pay for their education.

 

what about the 10 years of students that have/are paying for their education.

[dosxuk]

what about the 10 years of students that have/are paying for their education.

 

Write off any outstanding debt, and take the money they have already paid back to be used as their graduate tax contributions. Once that money runs out, they join the "normal" system and start paying directly out of their wages.

[spooky3]

what about the 10 years of students that have/are paying for their education.

 

It's manageable. I know!

 

Maybe it'll be more than I have to pay back, but, as demonstrated in post #2 the world becomes your oyster as so to say!

[llamatron]

Write off any outstanding debt, and take the money they have already paid back to be used as their graduate tax contributions. Once that money runs out, they join the "normal" system and start paying directly out of their wages.

 

whilst that is a logical idea, the thought of the tax people doing it is laughable. They can't get tax codes correct as it is and it would then also involve the student loans company. Absolute chaos:hihi:

 

The fact is it would be very unfair to retrospectively tax people. You can only change what will happen in the future.

 

I think in reality tuition fees are fairer than a graduate tax. You get the service then pay for it in affordable payments rather than you get the service then some of you get an average job and never pay it back whilst those that work than arses off gradually get charged more and more to pay for those that just wanted to drink for a few years before working in a supermarket.

[dosxuk]

You wouldn't retrospectively tax people (someone who was 64 might rightly be rather unhappy at suddenly getting an entire working lives tax bill to pay, and as you say, it would be unfair), you would start taxing them on their earnings from say the beginning of the next financial year. I don't see that as being any more unfair on a newly graduated student, someone who's a year off retirement, or a leader of the government. All of them can do as many people have suggested, and take a pay cut to below the national average wage and avoid paying any additional tax.

 

But as I said, as it would negatively affect all the people who got their education for free who currently run this country, it will never ever happen.

 

I think in reality tuition fees are fairer than a graduate tax. You get the service then pay for it in affordable payments rather than you get the service then some of you get an average job and never pay it back whilst those that work than arses off gradually get charged more and more to pay for those that just wanted to drink for a few years before working in a supermarket.

 

But since the argument for charging for going to university is that you will earn more than the average person over your lifetime that doesn't really make much sense. As it stands, you can avoid paying back any of your loan by earning less than their abitary threshhold (I would link a graduate tax to a rolling average wage so while it constantly changes, it also constantly relects the way people are being paid). Also, by only charging those who have been to university, those who "work their arses off" and make a successful career without taking a few years off to go drinking (and without costing the country in educating them) are rewarded for their effort by paying less tax.

[llamatron]

You wouldn't retrospectively tax people (someone who was 64 might rightly be rather unhappy at suddenly getting an entire working lives tax bill to pay, and as you say, it would be unfair), you would start taxing them on their earnings from say the beginning of the next financial year. I don't see that as being any more unfair on a newly graduated student, someone who's a year off retirement, or a leader of the government. All of them can do as many people have suggested, and take a pay cut to below the national average wage and avoid paying any additional tax.

 

But as I said, as it would negatively affect all the people who got their education for free who currently run this country, it will never ever happen.

 

Its unfair because they were offered a free education, you can't say actually you have to pay for the free degree you did 10 years ago. We could afford free degrees then because we were so academically selective.

 

I was never offered a free degree, I have been charged but again I was offered a loan on certain terms that I accepted because I felt my course education was worth paying for, I still think it was good value for money.

 

making me pay a graduate tax now would be like increasing the price of my house whilst I am paying off my mortgage and not giving me the option of selling the house.