This graduate tax
Discussion
The whole concept of the graduate tax being proposed really annoys me.
The concept that a graduate who earns a good salary should be indebted to the country and thus pay higher rate of tax is simply nonsense.
Look at where the wealth comes from this country and you find that most of our national income comes from industries where typically the individuals are degree and above educated.
Our graduates are our biggest income generating resource and yet we punish them for it - bonkers.
OK, we do have lots of stupid degrees now, and as a country we encourage far too many students, but this approach can't be right can it?
The concept that a graduate who earns a good salary should be indebted to the country and thus pay higher rate of tax is simply nonsense.
Look at where the wealth comes from this country and you find that most of our national income comes from industries where typically the individuals are degree and above educated.
Our graduates are our biggest income generating resource and yet we punish them for it - bonkers.
OK, we do have lots of stupid degrees now, and as a country we encourage far too many students, but this approach can't be right can it?
rhinochopig said:
OK, we do have lots of stupid degrees now, and as a country we encourage far too many students
This is probably the issue.Sadly, I know a number of people who have gone to University, obtained a degree in how to pick up dog litter, have absolutely no intention on using this degree, ever, and are now sitting unemployed or couldn't hold down a job because they can't deal with a 9-5.
The issue however, is that those who DO require a degree for a future career (doctors for example) should NOT be penalised for the education required.
They problem is, where do you draw the line?
Works out well for those who are working their way up through the ranks though?
What does a degree mean nowadays? Of course certain professions require it but do you really need a 2-2 degree in Ecology to go and work for a company selling records management and shredding??
What does the degree prove to the employer that you have a certain level of intelligence, that your willing to work?
Two schools of thought: -
A. Why should the taxpayer provide a 0% loan to fund this, make it at least base rate interest.
B. The graduate will get a higher paid job at the end and will inevitably pay more income tax over their lifetime.
It seems to me that some people see university as a laugh, a way to meet people, get away from their family and live on their own. Having said that a lot of companies will not even entertain someone without a degree even if it has no relevance to the job they are applying for.
What does the degree prove to the employer that you have a certain level of intelligence, that your willing to work?
Two schools of thought: -
A. Why should the taxpayer provide a 0% loan to fund this, make it at least base rate interest.
B. The graduate will get a higher paid job at the end and will inevitably pay more income tax over their lifetime.
It seems to me that some people see university as a laugh, a way to meet people, get away from their family and live on their own. Having said that a lot of companies will not even entertain someone without a degree even if it has no relevance to the job they are applying for.
I'm sure they could divide it into say 3 or 4 categories in determining how important the degree is. Doctors, scientists, accountants etc would face no tax, as a degree is an essential prerequisite to one of these jobs. Then there could be jobs in perhaps some areas of management, finance, advertising and so on, where a degree is important, but work experience is equally important, and these graduates might face a partial tax. Then there are the useless degrees, which have no relevance (or at least importance) to the careers pursued by the graduates, and these people face the full tax.
The problem with the current system is that it can become ruinously expensive to go to university, especially if you are doing something such as architecture or medicine where you are there for 5 years. Also the current system favours either the very poor or the very wealthy, people whose parents are on middle incomes and don't qualify for financial support but whose parents don't earn enough (or have too much debt to service) end up stuck. I'm not entirely sure the graduate tax is the best way to fund the university system but I don't think the current system is adequate either.
chinesechicken said:
rhinochopig said:
OK, we do have lots of stupid degrees now, and as a country we encourage far too many students
This is probably the issue.[b]Sadly, I know a number of people who have gone to University, obtained a degree in how to pick up dog litter, have absolutely no intention on using this degree, ever, and are now sitting unemployed or couldn't hold down a job because they can't deal with a 9-5.
The issue however, is that those who DO require a degree for a future career (doctors for example) should NOT be penalised for the education required.[/b]
They problem is, where do you draw the line?
Works out well for those who are working their way up through the ranks though?
This
Here in belgium we have a very strict new system: higher education is highly funded, until you fail a year.
Then it's gonna cost you if you want to go through with it.
Before that it could gone up to three years. A friend of mine started in the 1st year, failed, did another course in the 1st, passed, failed the 2nd year for the first time and then he failed the 2nd year again.
4 years!! He not only didn't earn any money (and thus didn't pay taxes), but he wasted a lot of his parents' and the taxpayers' money.
Dunclane said:
worsy said:
Yup degrees are minimum standard employers want these days, much like A levels were, and before that 5 GCEs. The worry is the next step is a minimum 2:1.
It is already! Nevermind the 9+ years experience in the industry and working for some of the top companies in the industry...
you dont have a 2.1, then you are binned... actually had a very apologetic VP asking after me via my agent, for a job as I had come through on a personal recommendation and I told him that a few months early my CV was binned from a similar job he had so I wasnt interested. It seeme HR are going mental at the moment...
Although I can see why they are asking for a 1st in Maths/mathematical computing/investment/etc and a masters/PHD for the grad roles in the investment banks as they can afford to be picky...
worsy said:
Yup degrees are minimum standard employers want these days, much like A levels were, and before that 5 GCEs. The worry is the next step is a minimum 2:1.
why is that a worry?As per the other thread everyone gets them anyway, I reckon it should 1st only, that would stop people going to uni that weren't cut out for it.
okgo said:
worsy said:
Yup degrees are minimum standard employers want these days, much like A levels were, and before that 5 GCEs. The worry is the next step is a minimum 2:1.
why is that a worry?As per the other thread everyone gets them anyway, I reckon it should 1st only, that would stop people going to uni that weren't cut out for it.
k off and dont waste 3 years!!Yeah thats a really good way to do it, stop them from getting further education
What happens if you go to university, attend all the lectures, eat all the food, try all the drugs, read all the books, bonk all the girls but fail your degree. Do you still get taxed even though you are degree-less?
The idea of taxing people for improving themselves is madness. It would be like your local council increasing your council tax for improving your house.
Oh.
Hang on.
rhinochopig said:
OK, we do have lots of stupid degrees now, and as a country we encourage far too many students, but this approach can't be right can it?
We need to be selective as to which universities and courses are funded and which aren't. We cannot afford to put half our school leavers through 'university' (as Nu Labia aspired to) as it is simply far too expensive. Get back to a situation where there are funded university places for 5% of school leavers, and make it highly competitive to get in. If you're not good enough to qualify, find a job or fund your own further education in a private (i.e. not state-funded) system.
Oli.
One of the key benefits of taxation is to provide free education so the young can help grow the country and develop it. That should be free for all, within reason.
What is a waste is all the shi77y degrees we have these days where people who couldn't pass even a couple of old style O levels can go to Uni and get a degree and then think they are educated and worthy of an intellectual job.
When Universities consisted of the old institutions and you had to get 3 A levels to get in, all above C grade, then they were worth having.
My gf has a masters degree from Holland, worked hard for it for 5 years but some employers in the UK can't now tell the difference between that and a 3 year piss it against the wall UK degree in Social Studies or Music and Drama. Pity as the UK will suffer for it.
What is a waste is all the shi77y degrees we have these days where people who couldn't pass even a couple of old style O levels can go to Uni and get a degree and then think they are educated and worthy of an intellectual job.
When Universities consisted of the old institutions and you had to get 3 A levels to get in, all above C grade, then they were worth having.
My gf has a masters degree from Holland, worked hard for it for 5 years but some employers in the UK can't now tell the difference between that and a 3 year piss it against the wall UK degree in Social Studies or Music and Drama. Pity as the UK will suffer for it.
okgo said:
worsy said:
Yup degrees are minimum standard employers want these days, much like A levels were, and before that 5 GCEs. The worry is the next step is a minimum 2:1.
why is that a worry?As per the other thread everyone gets them anyway, I reckon it should 1st only, that would stop people going to uni that weren't cut out for it.
When I went to university, it was still free to those who could benefit from it, and there were still grants available. Since then, it has become available to anyone who is willing to endebt himself (or who has access to enough cash), and scarcely believably this was largely the doing of a Labour government. The pragmatic aim of providing social mobility through equality of opportunity squashed by a dogmatic and ultimately doomed rush to provide equality of outcome.
Higher education needs triage - if resources are limited (and they are), they should be spent on educating those who are most able to benefit from it, irrespective of background.
Higher education needs triage - if resources are limited (and they are), they should be spent on educating those who are most able to benefit from it, irrespective of background.
otolith said:
Higher education needs triage - if resources are limited (and they are), they should be spent on educating those who are most able to benefit from it, irrespective of background.
A levels 
Used to work well before it was noted by the lefties that a number of less able students were not able to pass them, so they started making them easier . . . otolith said:
When I went to university, it was still free to those who could benefit from it, and there were still grants available. Since then, it has become available to anyone who is willing to endebt himself (or who has access to enough cash), and scarcely believably this was largely the doing of a Labour government. The pragmatic aim of providing social mobility through equality of opportunity squashed by a dogmatic and ultimately doomed rush to provide equality of outcome.
Higher education needs triage - if resources are limited (and they are), they should be spent on educating those who are most able to benefit from it, irrespective of background.
Whilst I kind of agree with you, you cannot ignore the effects of social background. There is one side to the argument for making it easy to go.Higher education needs triage - if resources are limited (and they are), they should be spent on educating those who are most able to benefit from it, irrespective of background.
Originating from Hull, I was "lucky" enough to have benefited from the worst primary, secondary and senior school education England could offer. On taking A-levels, I went to a new 6th form college which was equally terrible.
I left Hull with appalling grades and was very very lucky to achieve a place though clearing at a new Uni (old Poly) on a course that was new that year. The course was poor, but I worked hard and got my 2:1. This gave me the stepping stone to go to a Russel group Uni on the best MSc in the country for subject - at which point I was found to be dyslexic, which is frankly disgraceful IMO that it was detected so late.
Based on what a lot are arguing, I would not have gone to Uni, and probably stayed at home and done nothing with my life. Perhaps I would have been an acceptable casualty of a system that favours more affluent areas? Obviously, I benefited from a system that made it easy for me to go (more places than students then) and I received a full grant to do so, as I wouldn't be where I am today
How the hell you legislate for the differences in social background though I don't know. Positive discrimination certainly doesn't work, but you somehow need to enable those kids that have the raw ability but not the education.
Edited by rhinochopig on Friday 16th July 13:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff