if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
Indeed, why should someone on minimum wage or below average or even average earnings pay the tuition fees of a law student who becomes or corporate lawyer or QC, or a medical student who becomes a consultant or doctor or an economics student who works for a hedge fund or bank or an IT student who works for Apple or Google or Microsoft and will earn multiple times their salary? Those students, especially at top universities, should pay fees and have the highest course fees
These successful graduates on high earnings will pay more income tax anyway, even without a graduate tax, and even without our income tax rates being more progressive.
So will some non graduates pay the highest rate of income tax but income tax alone is not enough to fund 40% now going to university nor to keep our top research universities amongst the best in the world. Those who got high graduate premiums from their degree should pay a significant fee for that, it can still be funded initially by a loan and then that repaid after
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Try reading. I said education, not university.
Maybe if you were better educated, you would have noticed that and understood the point? 😜
The only education you are arguing for is free university
No, I'm not. I believe in free schooling too. I believe in free college education too.
I think schools, colleges and university should be treated the same and funded the same. And those who benefit the most from education and earn the most as a result, repay that via income tax which funds the next generation.
Well, yes, but - are any of those institutions doing the jobs we need them to do? Primary school, probably yes. Colleges - probably yes. Secondary schools - a bit, though major room for a rethink on what we want from them. University - almost certainly not. Well, some are. But there is an awful lot of effort being put into educating an awful lot of people with things they don't really need to know. Granted they put out graduates in engineering and medicine, but they also put out graduates in sociology and English literature. Funding more than a smattering of the latter doesn't strike me as a good use of public money (or indeed anybody's money).
Mandatory schooling until the age of 21, perhaps?
When I become unDictator, apprenticeships will be merged with degrees. Lawyers will be forced to learn to weld. Plumbers will be forced to appreciate Wordsworth.
*happy memories of Henry Wilt in the Sharpe novels changing from teaching Wordsworth to how to deal with the rozzers to his day release apprentice butcher students*
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
Tbh, growth mindset is nowadays less scientifically supported than general intelligence ("IQ"); people tend to at least believe that the latter exists, even though they disagree about its importance, but growth mindset results typically can't be replicated by other teams of researchers.
On topic: There appear to be parallels in the US. From the WaPo's principal fact checker, Glenn Kessler: "Which president has contributed the most to the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance? That would be Lyndon B. Johnson, according to a 2021 study by Charles Blahous, a former economic adviser to George W. Bush and a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 2010 through 2015. Through an exhaustive study of Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget reports, Blahous estimated LBJ’s share of the fiscal imbalance is 29.7 percent. Close behind is Richard M. Nixon, with 29.2 percent.
Johnson enacted Medicare and Medicaid in the mid-1960s, and then Nixon in the early 1970s expanded both programs and also enhanced Social Security so that benefits were indexed to inflation. Social Security and Medicare are now so popular that both Biden and Republicans have pledged not to touch them as they haggle over other types of government spending. But in effect, according to this analysis, almost two-thirds of the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance is a result of policy choices made more than 50 years ago." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/16/president-most-blame-spiraling-national-debt-is/
The baby bust which followed these two presidents has made the fiscal imbalance worse, of course.
George W. Bush proposed saving social security by setting up individual savings accounts, with subsidies for low earners. Even after his win in 2004, the subject was too sensitive to even get a real hearing from Congress.
(Full disclosure: I am, like nearly every other American my age, a beneficiary of those programs.)
Does that analysis include the point that the Vietnam war doubled expenditure on defence during LBJ and Nixon's presidencies ?
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Tobias Ellwood resigns from Defence Committee chair.
To focus his time on being the MP for Kabul North.
I don't think what he said was entirely incorrect and it was Biden who decided to withdraw western troops and hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban not Ellwood
Actually that was Trump. Biden just continued with the policy.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Try reading. I said education, not university.
Maybe if you were better educated, you would have noticed that and understood the point? 😜
The only education you are arguing for is free university
No, I'm not. I believe in free schooling too. I believe in free college education too.
I think schools, colleges and university should be treated the same and funded the same. And those who benefit the most from education and earn the most as a result, repay that via income tax which funds the next generation.
Well, yes, but - are any of those institutions doing the jobs we need them to do? Primary school, probably yes. Colleges - probably yes. Secondary schools - a bit, though major room for a rethink on what we want from them. University - almost certainly not. Well, some are. But there is an awful lot of effort being put into educating an awful lot of people with things they don't really need to know. Granted they put out graduates in engineering and medicine, but they also put out graduates in sociology and English literature. Funding more than a smattering of the latter doesn't strike me as a good use of public money (or indeed anybody's money).
Mandatory schooling until the age of 21, perhaps?
When I become unDictator, apprenticeships will be merged with degrees. Lawyers will be forced to learn to weld. Plumbers will be forced to appreciate Wordsworth.
*happy memories of Henry Wilt in the Sharpe novels changing from teaching Wordsworth to how to deal with the rozzers to his day release apprentice butcher students*
I don't recall that plot thread. Seems notably tangential to the Peninsular War.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
My response was of course slightly tongue-in-cheek - hence the ;-) But regarding IQ as a measure:
1. You said: 'For a start average iq is 110. No, the whole point about IQ is that it aims to be a quotient, centred around 100. Average (mean) IQ is, or should be, very close to 100, not 110.
2. IQ is not a complete, nor necessity accurate measure of intelligence. For example, creativity and social intelligence are not captured well by IQ tests.
I made no comments regarding what percentage of people could obtain a degree. Since you ask I would suggest, that with sufficient educational support, the large majority of people could obtain a degree if they so wanted. Clearly there are some people with learning difficulties who could not and many who have no desire or motivation.
As an anecdotal example, I offer my neighbour's daughter who is, by my neighbour's own admission 'not terribly bright'. In fact, I would say she is rather dim; lovely person, but dim.
However... she went to a top private school, obtained three A levels and subsequently a degree in Estate Management from the Royal Agricultural University.
If she can do it, I'd say 70% of the population could. Whether we'd want to fund that is a different matter.
Shrugs I made a mistake quoting from memory the 110 so accept what you say as to 100. I would however query how much standards for degrees have been lowered because part of getting 50% to go from 10% I cannot believe there has not been a lowering of standards. I have worked with plenty of graduates in the 80's , 90's and forward. All I can say is back in the 80's and 90's you could tell why people had degrees. Nowadays they seem a little underpowered on average.....yes you still get the bright ones you just seem to have more mediocre ones that you wouldn't trust to run a whelk stall
Well yes, but now you are making a partly self-fulfilling argument: when university degrees were restricted to only a few, they tended to have a greater proportion of very bright people. Of course.
Not just that but the number of firsts given out now is obscene around 30 to 40% of the total i believe. (Used to be 1 or 2 firsts in a year out of 150). How can a truly intelligent person stand out in such a system. So then it all comes back to connections and contacts where the upper middle class have a massive advantage.
Fucking hell, has Elon Musk been taking history lessons from Morris Dancer?
As any child knows the Pearl Harbour attack happened after the US invaded Japan.
Elon Musk on the request from the Ukrainian Government to turn on Starlink in Crimea: “We figured out that this was kind of like a Pearl Harbor like attack...So they really asked us to proactively take part in a major act of war”
An attack on occupiers of your own territory is hardly a 'major act of war'.
It's not even as though the daft tw@t has factories in Russia.
There are a lot of people who cannot conceive of a Russian defeat and so are determined to prevent it.
We've now seen a major attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol harbour using British-supplied weapons. Where are the consequences Musk was worried about?
Fuck knows, given Ukraine repeated much the same attack and succeeded.
"I'm sorry, I was wrong" would be the honest, non narcissistic response from Musk.
The attack yesterday used, in part, drone boats with Starlink connections.
An implicit acknowledgment his prior judgment was wrong.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
My response was of course slightly tongue-in-cheek - hence the ;-) But regarding IQ as a measure:
1. You said: 'For a start average iq is 110. No, the whole point about IQ is that it aims to be a quotient, centred around 100. Average (mean) IQ is, or should be, very close to 100, not 110.
2. IQ is not a complete, nor necessity accurate measure of intelligence. For example, creativity and social intelligence are not captured well by IQ tests.
I made no comments regarding what percentage of people could obtain a degree. Since you ask I would suggest, that with sufficient educational support, the large majority of people could obtain a degree if they so wanted. Clearly there are some people with learning difficulties who could not and many who have no desire or motivation.
As an anecdotal example, I offer my neighbour's daughter who is, by my neighbour's own admission 'not terribly bright'. In fact, I would say she is rather dim; lovely person, but dim.
However... she went to a top private school, obtained three A levels and subsequently a degree in Estate Management from the Royal Agricultural University.
If she can do it, I'd say 70% of the population could. Whether we'd want to fund that is a different matter.
Shrugs I made a mistake quoting from memory the 110 so accept what you say as to 100. I would however query how much standards for degrees have been lowered because part of getting 50% to go from 10% I cannot believe there has not been a lowering of standards. I have worked with plenty of graduates in the 80's , 90's and forward. All I can say is back in the 80's and 90's you could tell why people had degrees. Nowadays they seem a little underpowered on average.....yes you still get the bright ones you just seem to have more mediocre ones that you wouldn't trust to run a whelk stall
Well yes, but now you are making a partly self-fulfilling argument: when university degrees were restricted to only a few, they tended to have a greater proportion of very bright people. Of course.
Not just that but the number of firsts given out now is obscene around 30 to 40% of the total i believe. (Used to be 1 or 2 firsts in a year out of 150). How can a truly intelligent person stand out in such a system. So then it all comes back to connections and contacts where the upper middle class have a massive advantage.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Try reading. I said education, not university.
Maybe if you were better educated, you would have noticed that and understood the point? 😜
The only education you are arguing for is free university
No, I'm not. I believe in free schooling too. I believe in free college education too.
I think schools, colleges and university should be treated the same and funded the same. And those who benefit the most from education and earn the most as a result, repay that via income tax which funds the next generation.
Well, yes, but - are any of those institutions doing the jobs we need them to do? Primary school, probably yes. Colleges - probably yes. Secondary schools - a bit, though major room for a rethink on what we want from them. University - almost certainly not. Well, some are. But there is an awful lot of effort being put into educating an awful lot of people with things they don't really need to know. Granted they put out graduates in engineering and medicine, but they also put out graduates in sociology and English literature. Funding more than a smattering of the latter doesn't strike me as a good use of public money (or indeed anybody's money).
Mandatory schooling until the age of 21, perhaps?
When I become unDictator, apprenticeships will be merged with degrees. Lawyers will be forced to learn to weld. Plumbers will be forced to appreciate Wordsworth.
*happy memories of Henry Wilt in the Sharpe novels changing from teaching Wordsworth to how to deal with the rozzers to his day release apprentice butcher students*
Imagine citing Putin, the man who literally murders journalists and political opponents as proof that the criminal indictments against you is “Political interference”. 🤦♂️
Fucking hell, has Elon Musk been taking history lessons from Morris Dancer?
As any child knows the Pearl Harbour attack happened after the US invaded Japan.
Elon Musk on the request from the Ukrainian Government to turn on Starlink in Crimea: “We figured out that this was kind of like a Pearl Harbor like attack...So they really asked us to proactively take part in a major act of war”
An attack on occupiers of your own territory is hardly a 'major act of war'.
It's not even as though the daft tw@t has factories in Russia.
There are a lot of people who cannot conceive of a Russian defeat and so are determined to prevent it.
We've now seen a major attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol harbour using British-supplied weapons. Where are the consequences Musk was worried about?
Fuck knows, given Ukraine repeated much the same attack and succeeded.
"I'm sorry, I was wrong" would be the honest, non narcissistic response from Musk.
The attack yesterday used, in part, drone boats with Starlink connections.
An implicit acknowledgment his prior judgment was wrong.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
'Sociology' , in any case, covers topics often very useful to the right-winger. Policing and prison policy and so on. If more of them studied it they might get more articles published in sociological journals instead of dodgy thinktanks pretending to tbe charities.
Fucking hell, has Elon Musk been taking history lessons from Morris Dancer?
As any child knows the Pearl Harbour attack happened after the US invaded Japan.
Elon Musk on the request from the Ukrainian Government to turn on Starlink in Crimea: “We figured out that this was kind of like a Pearl Harbor like attack...So they really asked us to proactively take part in a major act of war”
An attack on occupiers of your own territory is hardly a 'major act of war'.
It's not even as though the daft tw@t has factories in Russia.
There are a lot of people who cannot conceive of a Russian defeat and so are determined to prevent it.
We've now seen a major attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol harbour using British-supplied weapons. Where are the consequences Musk was worried about?
Fuck knows, given Ukraine repeated much the same attack and succeeded.
"I'm sorry, I was wrong" would be the honest, non narcissistic response from Musk.
The attack yesterday used, in part, drone boats with Starlink connections.
An implicit acknowledgment his prior judgment was wrong.
There are rumours on X (I know...) that Starlink suffered an outage at about the time of the attack.
And that's the stupid situation the man-child Musk has led himself to: by asserting he has God-like powers over everything he touches, events outside his control could be seen to be as a result of his touch.
Certainly if I was Ukraine, I might use Starlink sparingly, and expect service outages. A backup for autonomous systems, at best.
If I was CEO of a large company, there's zero chance I'd make my company rely on Starlink. Because Musky Baby could just decide to pull the plug on my service because he split up with yet another wife.
Tobias Ellwood resigns from Defence Committee chair.
To focus his time on being the MP for Kabul North.
I don't think what he said was entirely incorrect and it was Biden who decided to withdraw western troops and hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban not Ellwood
Actually that was Trump. Biden just continued with the policy.
So what, the withdrawal still came on Biden's watch.
Bush launched the invasion and toppled the Taliban, Obama killed Bin Laden, Biden enabled the Taliban to return
Is there something in the makeup of Tory councillors that makes them desperate to speculate recklessly with other people's money?
Will there be any comeback against said councillors? (That's a rhetorical question - we all know the answer.)
I do think this needs serious investigation. Quite a few councils went absolutely nuts with commercial property in a way that was reckless at best and potentially fishy in some cases.
At the very least it needs close examination so it isn't repeated, and there may be a case for surcharges along the lines of Shirley Porter (although she was seriously loaded of course and I doubt the key movers in these latest cases are).
This is just a new administration trying to score political points by blaming the last one for its financial woes. In reality the situation is just much the same across local government, they have been catastrophically underfunded and cut beyond the bone for over a decade.
Have a look at the variance in indebtedness. Sure, there is a pack in one part of the graph, but there is a looong tail of dodgy councils.
I don't think the data in this article is a particularly fair metric. It doesn't deal with the underlying value of the assets, usually land/property/real estate which is going through a process of development. You need to look further in to the actual accounts to get a clear picture of what is going on in each case.
Imagine citing Putin, the man who literally murders journalists and political opponents as proof that the criminal indictments against you is “Political interference”. 🤦♂️
Republicans against Trump need reading comprehension lessons. His point is about how the US looks to the outside world, and he's bemoaning the fact that Putin is using it to score points.
Imagine citing Putin, the man who literally murders journalists and political opponents as proof that the criminal indictments against you is “Political interference”. 🤦♂️
Republicans against Trump need reading comprehension lessons. His point is about how the US looks to the outside world, and he's bemoaning the fact that Putin is using it to score points.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
Without wishing to dox myself, my old global megacorp was very big on growth mindsets and mindfulness.
Imagine citing Putin, the man who literally murders journalists and political opponents as proof that the criminal indictments against you is “Political interference”. 🤦♂️
Republicans against Trump need reading comprehension lessons. His point is about how the US looks to the outside world, and he's bemoaning the fact that Putin is using it to score points.
Yes and to the rest of the world the US looks good for holding to account its corrupt politicians who break the law attempting to overthrow election results.
Putin wouldn't understand that. He, like Trump, sees no advantage in free democracy or accepting your opponent won.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
I’d be interested to know how many of the signatories actually use ticket offices as opposed to just like the idea of them.
Our local ticket office was closed. It was the re opened after a backlash against it then closed again a few months later as hardly anyone used it.
I use them each time I travel to buy my ticket. Or to ask about the service and any delays.
Smartcards and apps don't work for me.
I've got a the app for the Finnish State Railway, VR. You can buy tickets, change them, upgrade, get a seat reservation etc, all really easily. That doesn't exist in the UK, all the apps are a joke, people don't really use them. In this context the problem is that the closure of the ticket offices is premature.
On the anniversary of the incompetent Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour Leader, I ask, who has been the worst former Leader of the Labour Party in the 21st century?
#Labour #LabourParty #Conservative #ConservativeParty #JeremyCorbyn #EdMiliband #GordonBrown #TonyBlair #Politics Jeremy Corbyn 13.8% Ed Miliband 11% Gordon Brown 5.7% Tony Blair 69.5%
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
Something like 20% of my class at UCL in the 90s were mature students - a mix of people who’d dropped out of original degree courses and those who’d left school early.
It’s often seemed silly to me that we demand that teenagers fix the course of their lives by picking a degree. And have the expectation they will always be right.
Bursaries for mature students? Targeting skills that are in shortage?
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
Something like 20% of my class at UCL in the 90s were mature students - a mix of people who’d dropped out of original degree courses and those who’d left school early.
It’s often seemed silly to me that we demand that teenagers fix the course of their lives by picking a degree. And have the expectation they will always be right.
Bursaries for mature students? Targeting skills that are in shortage?
When I did my geo eng course many moons ago, there was a guy doing the degree who had a couple of decades of experience in civil engineering. He knew more about the practicalities and practice of engineering than most of the lecturers.
And most of the lecturers hated him for it. The exceptions being the couple who had also spent years actually engineering things.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
On the anniversary of the incompetent Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour Leader, I ask, who has been the worst former Leader of the Labour Party in the 21st century?
#Labour #LabourParty #Conservative #ConservativeParty #JeremyCorbyn #EdMiliband #GordonBrown #TonyBlair #Politics Jeremy Corbyn 13.8% Ed Miliband 11% Gordon Brown 5.7% Tony Blair 69.5%
Why should a Green Tory care about the Labour Party??
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
A perhaps underrated reason for the growth of university attendance is that it is a pleasant way of life for most people, at least at undergraduate level, involving a light workload and the opportunity to meet a lot of people, typically while young, receptive to new experiences and ideas, and on average, in relatively good health to take advantage of those opportunities.
And it's a way for young people to leave home. That's one of its most important functions. That's the main thing it did for me. The degree didn't matter. Only the place did. London.
There is something wrong about state pensions rising by 8.5% whilst the annual interest on student loans is rising by 13.5%.
Certainly the whole interest rate applied to student loans thing is a major issue.
I don’t have an issue with the principle of student loans for going to Uni. I generally agree with Pagan. What I do think is wrong and needs reform is the interest rate applied which seems punitive especially when compared to base rate. 13.5% is, what, 8% or so above base rate. It’s way in excess of inflation too. With the power of compounding some people will never pay it off.
A perhaps underrated reason for the growth of university attendance is that it is a pleasant way of life for most people, at least at undergraduate level, involving a light workload and the opportunity to meet a lot of people, typically while young, receptive to new experiences and ideas, and on average, in relatively good health to take advantage of those opportunities.
And it's a way for young people to leave home. That's one of its most important functions. That's the main thing it did for me. The degree didn't matter. Only the place did. London.
I left home at 16 so it can be done, I actually got an offer from a few uni's but I couldn't take them as I had people to support
Incheon urged to maximize potential to replace Hong Kong https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=359092 ...Korea's use of English as a foreign language, instead of the official language, was mentioned as another obstacle to Incheon's goal during the discussion session, which also provided simultaneous interpretation.
"The reason why German investment goes to Hong Kong and Singapore is their English-speaking people," the KGCCI president said. "The language is so important for foreigners to come."
British Chamber of Commerce in Korea (BCCK) Executive Director Lucinda Walker agreed that the inconvenience in using English has partially caused difficulties in attracting foreign investors to Korea, although she recognized Incheon for making efforts to change that...
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
I've repeatedly answered.
Education is good for society.
Education allows everyone to do the best for themselves and their family.
People who are well educated pay more tax.
People who are well educated claim less in benefits.
The taxpayer is better off for having had education, which affords paying for the next generation of education.
Everyone should have a chance to exercise education, including later in life.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you privatize it you make it only for the wealthy. That would be egregious. Therefore it must be funded from taxation. At least to a large extent.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you privatize it you make it only for the wealthy. That would be egregious. Therefore it must be funded from taxation. At least to a large extent.
Where did I say anything about privatising. I merely pointed out even if you make it free for all a lot of people cant take advantage of it and you are asking them to subsidize what is a choice not a necessity.
Barty often rails about welfare for pensioners yet is sitting here arguing that university students should get welfare handouts. Is it just me wondering if its because he was a uni student but not yet a pensioner?
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you're going to go down that route then you need to account for all services you use, and for the differential tax takes from graduates and non-graduates. By setting your question as two people with the same lifetime tax payment, you are ironing away all the inconvenient nuance.
A truly honest accounting would calculate the benefit TO YOU of that person's degree, in terms of patents, innovation, attracting inward investment that values higher education, and so much more. Your finger in the air "calculations" are truly meaningless.
Do give over....you know non graduates also do patents, innovation and attract inward investment? For example most tech companies like apple, google and facebook have been founded by university dropouts? Most graduates contribute nothing to those
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you privatize it you make it only for the wealthy. That would be egregious. Therefore it must be funded from taxation. At least to a large extent.
Where did I say anything about privatising. I merely pointed out even if you make it free for all a lot of people cant take advantage of it and you are asking them to subsidize what is a choice not a necessity.
Barty often rails about welfare for pensioners yet is sitting here arguing that university students should get welfare handouts. Is it just me wondering if its because he was a uni student but not yet a pensioner?
If you don't want your taxes funding university education you must want it privatised no? Or am I missing a nuance having not read the whole thread?
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
Something like 20% of my class at UCL in the 90s were mature students - a mix of people who’d dropped out of original degree courses and those who’d left school early.
It’s often seemed silly to me that we demand that teenagers fix the course of their lives by picking a degree. And have the expectation they will always be right.
Bursaries for mature students? Targeting skills that are in shortage?
When I did my geo eng course many moons ago, there was a guy doing the degree who had a couple of decades of experience in civil engineering. He knew more about the practicalities and practice of engineering than most of the lecturers.
And most of the lecturers hated him for it. The exceptions being the couple who had also spent years actually engineering things.
In passing, and wrt mature students, the elephant in this debate is surely the Open University which currently has 157k undergraduates and 11k postgrads, a majority of whom are mature students.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Let me introduce you to Academies.
I didn't think there were any non selective private schools. Eton and its royals aside.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you privatize it you make it only for the wealthy. That would be egregious. Therefore it must be funded from taxation. At least to a large extent.
Where did I say anything about privatising. I merely pointed out even if you make it free for all a lot of people cant take advantage of it and you are asking them to subsidize what is a choice not a necessity.
Barty often rails about welfare for pensioners yet is sitting here arguing that university students should get welfare handouts. Is it just me wondering if its because he was a uni student but not yet a pensioner?
If you don't want your taxes funding university education you must want it privatised no? Or am I missing a nuance having not read the whole thread?
Asking uni students to pay for their own education is not the same as privatising it. Privatising it would be telling uni's they can charge the course fees they want and they have to finance themselves from student fees. As it is course fees are capped at 9k regardless of how much the course costs to teach
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
It would be fairer than what we have today of 9% for some, 0% for others.
But I don't think graduating or taking part in education is an externality to be discouraged, so it should just be income tax at whatever rate.
Graduates will pay more income tax (on average) anyway, and claim less in benefits too, so the Exchequer is better off anyway.
It'll be a disaster if they want to bring in a driving licence for cyclists. A lot of people who currently cycle will probably decide they can't be bothered and the roads will become even more congested by cars.
What happened to the cycling proficiency training they used to have in schools?
It's still there, developed into a 3-level course called Bikeability, which is taken by something like 450k pupils per annum.
There is also an adult version, which is taken by some 10s of thousands of people each year.
Generally both are available free to the learner, though the adult one may be a touch more tricky to access.
I did it when I started cycling again more extensively around 10 years ago. It is very good.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
It would be fairer than what we have today of 9% for some, 0% for others.
But I don't think graduating or taking part in education is an externality to be discouraged, so it should just be income tax at whatever rate.
Graduates will pay more income tax (on average) anyway, and claim less in benefits too, so the Exchequer is better off anyway.
I do not believe education should be discouraged either, however compulsory education ends at 18 now, 16 in my day. So yes uni is optional. If it was mandatory then I would think you have more of a point. However choosing to goto uni on average does benefit the student in financial returns far more than the state which is why I think them paying for it rather than expecting those that dont have the option contribute is fairer.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
Virtually no expert in this field believes “intelligence is developed, not innate”
The overwhelming consensus is that intelligence is a mix of nature and nurture, heredity and environment. All twin studies show this
Tut
As for IQ tests - they are flawed, like all psychological tests. Human are difficult, the human brain is near-infinitely complex. But no one doubts that intelligence exists - there are bright people and dumb people - and IQ seems to measure something adjacent to this. Moreover, it is the best test of intelligence we have. No one has devised a satisfactory and superior replacement even if “the IQ test” is theatrically reviled, generally for ideological reasons
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
What we should have is higher fees for those who study law, medicine, economics and higher earning subjects and lower fees for those who study arts and humanities subjects. With government subsidising fees for some key subjects like engineering and nursing.
Those fees could still all be paid post graduation with loans when studying
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Let me introduce you to Academies.
I didn't think there were any non selective private schools. Eton and its royals aside.
Is there something in the makeup of Tory councillors that makes them desperate to speculate recklessly with other people's money?
Will there be any comeback against said councillors? (That's a rhetorical question - we all know the answer.)
I do think this needs serious investigation. Quite a few councils went absolutely nuts with commercial property in a way that was reckless at best and potentially fishy in some cases.
At the very least it needs close examination so it isn't repeated, and there may be a case for surcharges along the lines of Shirley Porter (although she was seriously loaded of course and I doubt the key movers in these latest cases are).
Isn't this both parties?
Certainly Coumcils near or over the edge are from both parties.
I can't fathom why Sunaik did his "Ner Ner Ner Birmingham" schoolyard rant, when Northamptonshire, Woking and Thurrock, all Tory, are in the same boat without the excuse of a Equal Pay settlement.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
It would be fairer than what we have today of 9% for some, 0% for others.
But I don't think graduating or taking part in education is an externality to be discouraged, so it should just be income tax at whatever rate.
Graduates will pay more income tax (on average) anyway, and claim less in benefits too, so the Exchequer is better off anyway.
I do not believe education should be discouraged either, however compulsory education ends at 18 now, 16 in my day. So yes uni is optional. If it was mandatory then I would think you have more of a point. However choosing to goto uni on average does benefit the student in financial returns far more than the state which is why I think them paying for it rather than expecting those that dont have the option contribute is fairer.
A levels used to be optional, does that mean that people should have been going into debt to do A-levels? Or that those who did A levels should face an A level tax?
If the student gets financial returns, they'll pay income tax anyway, so why do they need another tax on top of that? We don't need more taxes, we're taxed enough already.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Let me introduce you to Academies.
I didn't think there were any non selective private schools. Eton and its royals aside.
Fair point. Can't think of any. But all State schools do "ease out" difficult pupils to a greater or lesser degree. Few will admit it publicly, mind.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Let me introduce you to Academies.
I didn't think there were any non selective private schools. Eton and its royals aside.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Let me introduce you to Academies.
I didn't think there were any non selective private schools. Eton and its royals aside.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
Virtually no expert in this field believes “intelligence is developed, not innate”
The overwhelming consensus is that intelligence is a mix of nature and nurture, heredity and environment. All twin studies show this
Tut
As for IQ tests - they are flawed, like all psychological tests. Human are difficult, the human brain is near-infinitely complex. But no one doubts that intelligence exists - there are bright people and dumb people - and IQ seems to measure something adjacent to this. Moreover, it is the best test of intelligence we have. No one has devised a satisfactory and superior replacement even if “the IQ test” is theatrically reviled, generally for ideological reasons
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
Virtually no expert in this field believes “intelligence is developed, not innate”
The overwhelming consensus is that intelligence is a mix of nature and nurture, heredity and environment. All twin studies show this
Tut
As for IQ tests - they are flawed, like all psychological tests. Human are difficult, the human brain is near-infinitely complex. But no one doubts that intelligence exists - there are bright people and dumb people - and IQ seems to measure something adjacent to this. Moreover, it is the best test of intelligence we have. No one has devised a satisfactory and superior replacement even if “the IQ test” is theatrically reviled, generally for ideological reasons
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you privatize it you make it only for the wealthy. That would be egregious. Therefore it must be funded from taxation. At least to a large extent.
Where did I say anything about privatising. I merely pointed out even if you make it free for all a lot of people cant take advantage of it and you are asking them to subsidize what is a choice not a necessity.
Barty often rails about welfare for pensioners yet is sitting here arguing that university students should get welfare handouts. Is it just me wondering if its because he was a uni student but not yet a pensioner?
Education is not welfare.
And if I was being selfish, then it would be the case that I'll never be a student again, but I will be a pensioner at some point, so no that's not it.
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the 2012 Republican nominee for president who made a historic break with his party when he voted to remove former President Donald J. Trump from office, announced on Wednesday that he would not seek re-election in 2024, saying he wanted to make way for a “new generation of leaders.”
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
What we should have is higher fees for those who study law, medicine, economics and higher earning subjects and lower fees for those who study arts and humanities subjects. With government subsidising fees for some key subjects like engineering and nursing.
Those fees could still all be paid post graduation with loans when studying
Higher earning graduates do pay back more.
People don't believe this, but the thirty year write-off thing was a deliberate part of the original scheme, and makes it socially progressive. Graduates who earn megabucks pay more each month, get closer to paying off the loan and have a small write-off at the end. Those who earn less pay a smaller amount and have most of the debt written off. That was always the intention.
Much better than trying to tie it to courses studied. A law graduate may spend their career doing pro bono work for an advice centre. An arts grad may make a fortune in advertising. That's one of the problems with HE funding- you can't tell which individual students are going to make loadsamoney.
Some of the wrangling about this is bad faith by politicians. But it's probably also the case that the 2010 scheme was too clever by half, so that subsequent improvements have made it worse, because people don't understand the mechanism.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
I saw the other day that there is something called UKIB based out of Leeds which is a state backed bank to invest in infrastructure - not sure how much publicity it has received.
I posted something a week or so ago in response to a cyclefree message which I still think would be useful:
I would like to see a govt introduce “national infrastructure bonds” where the revenue is managed by a standalone non-government body and all local councils can apply for chunks of the money with submission of a plan.
The funds generated are absolutely ringfenced for infrastructure and nothing else.
The councils don’t lose funds from their budgets for the day to day stuff but can get a big boost of a hundred million for an essential housing development and ring road, private companies could borrow large fixed sums at a known rate from the pot as well so that they could spread the cost of, for example a new reservoir, over a known period.
The bonds are backed by government at an attractive but not crippling rate and so attractive to overseas pension funds and sovereign funds so has benefit of big government involvement but also big benefit of decisions on spending being removed from big government to a micro level where the local gov or private companies can really see a practical benefit and need.
The cost of servicing this debt has to come out of overall government spending however at least tax payers see that a chunk of this spending is going purely to long term rebuilding of the country which is good for them, their children and their grandchildren.
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Non-selective private schools quietly select out “difficult” pupils, something the state system doesn’t get to do.
Barty has yet to answer why people should subsidise university when as i have shown the major beneficiary is the student themselves financially not the state.
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
If you're going to go down that route then you need to account for all services you use, and for the differential tax takes from graduates and non-graduates. By setting your question as two people with the same lifetime tax payment, you are ironing away all the inconvenient nuance.
A truly honest accounting would calculate the benefit TO YOU of that person's degree, in terms of patents, innovation, attracting inward investment that values higher education, and so much more. Your finger in the air "calculations" are truly meaningless.
Plus the tax they pay on their additional earnings they might obtain as a result uf that degree. You can legitimately argue about the efficiency of particular details of the education system, but not about its being a net benefit to the economy of the country.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
We solve the "problem"* of ageing by working longer, paying more into taxes and pensions and by getting less.
* a healthy old age is not a problem, it is a tremendous pleasure and a benefit to society.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
It's a weighty topic, but I'm a bit confused by "not enough people working and paying taxes to keep the economy growing". I don't really get what you mean there. Perhaps you mean not enough taxes to pay for the services that older people need?
I think one of the biggest things we could do is transform the way we think about housing. It shouldn't be a store of wealth or income, it should be a place you live. You only get past that by removing the scarcity, and that means build build build.
If accommodation is cheap, people will spend their money elsewhere, creating opportunities for investment in innovative goods and services. Stuff that people want rather than just ploughing it all into the necessities of life. And that will also make it SO much cheaper to support those people who cannot work because of age or infirmity.
It wouldn't be a painless transition, but it's the right one.
I think what I meant is whether those who are working are productive enough to be generating economic growth as well as there being enough working and paying tax to support the public spending to which we aspire.
The problem with taking the wealth out of housing is for many their property is their principal asset - the money they gain from its sale funds their pension and a lifestyle which allows them consumption which helps the Services side of the balance sheet. For these individuals to match the value of their property asset would require them to save at levels which would trigger a recession if not a depression as people stopped consuming.
The trick of continuing consumption combined with the safety net of asset values running well ahead of inflation has kept the "lifestyle" of much of Britain for the past 40-50 years. The rise of the Conservative vote in the north and midlands began when Thatcher encouraged RTB and made houses assets and engines of wealth creation - it is the sons and daughters of those who exercised their right to buy their council tax who are the new Tory voters. They have wealth because they can own their homes and their home ownership was largely funded by inheritance provided from the assets their parents accumulated via the sale of their former council home which they were able to buy thanks to Thatcher.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
We solve the "problem"* of ageing by working longer, paying more into taxes and pensions and by getting less.
* a healthy old age is not a problem, it is a tremendous pleasure and a benefit to society.
Not necessarily all three. Let's say for the sake of argument that my life expectancy is ten years more than my grandfather's was. If I am as healthy at 75 as my grandfather was at 65, then not only should my annuity cost the same as his, but I will have had ten more years to save for it. Thus, if we can retire later, we can get the same and pay a smaller proportion of our income for it.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
It's a weighty topic, but I'm a bit confused by "not enough people working and paying taxes to keep the economy growing". I don't really get what you mean there. Perhaps you mean not enough taxes to pay for the services that older people need?
I think one of the biggest things we could do is transform the way we think about housing. It shouldn't be a store of wealth or income, it should be a place you live. You only get past that by removing the scarcity, and that means build build build.
If accommodation is cheap, people will spend their money elsewhere, creating opportunities for investment in innovative goods and services. Stuff that people want rather than just ploughing it all into the necessities of life. And that will also make it SO much cheaper to support those people who cannot work because of age or infirmity.
It wouldn't be a painless transition, but it's the right one.
I think what I meant is whether those who are working are productive enough to be generating economic growth as well as there being enough working and paying tax to support the public spending to which we aspire.
The problem with taking the wealth out of housing is for many their property is their principal asset - the money they gain from its sale funds their pension and a lifestyle which allows them consumption which helps the Services side of the balance sheet. For these individuals to match the value of their property asset would require them to save at levels which would trigger a recession if not a depression as people stopped consuming.
The trick of continuing consumption combined with the safety net of asset values running well ahead of inflation has kept the "lifestyle" of much of Britain for the past 40-50 years. The rise of the Conservative vote in the north and midlands began when Thatcher encouraged RTB and made houses assets and engines of wealth creation - it is the sons and daughters of those who exercised their right to buy their council tax who are the new Tory voters. They have wealth because they can own their homes and their home ownership was largely funded by inheritance provided from the assets their parents accumulated via the sale of their former council home which they were able to buy thanks to Thatcher.
I think we are in for quite a bear market in housing, as interest rates take their bite. In turn that means that people treating their house as a pension pot are going to be a lot poorer than they expected. Paper gains will become paper losses and dominate the finances of the elderly.
It may not benefit the young much as higher interest rates will hit affordability.
My yearning for a curry - any curry, even fucking french duck gizzard curry - is now virtually homicidal
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Look out for French tacos. Nothing like the Mexican version.
Food to die for, or of.
Lots of good Tunisian cous cous restaurants too if you fancy a change.
In almost any British town, even tiny ones, you will find a decent Indian restaurant, a semi-decent Chinese, and a decent Thai
I used to decry this, as denoting the absence of a thriving national cuisine - now I see that it is something to be cherished - as long as we don’t neglect our own developing new British cuisine
I had lunch with a French tourist guy a couple of days ago, and he admitted he had about two curries in his whole life, and he mistrusted spices. He told me his father was very different and went to London a lot “and loves Indian food”
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
It's a weighty topic, but I'm a bit confused by "not enough people working and paying taxes to keep the economy growing". I don't really get what you mean there. Perhaps you mean not enough taxes to pay for the services that older people need?
I think one of the biggest things we could do is transform the way we think about housing. It shouldn't be a store of wealth or income, it should be a place you live. You only get past that by removing the scarcity, and that means build build build.
If accommodation is cheap, people will spend their money elsewhere, creating opportunities for investment in innovative goods and services. Stuff that people want rather than just ploughing it all into the necessities of life. And that will also make it SO much cheaper to support those people who cannot work because of age or infirmity.
It wouldn't be a painless transition, but it's the right one.
I think what I meant is whether those who are working are productive enough to be generating economic growth as well as there being enough working and paying tax to support the public spending to which we aspire.
The problem with taking the wealth out of housing is for many their property is their principal asset - the money they gain from its sale funds their pension and a lifestyle which allows them consumption which helps the Services side of the balance sheet. For these individuals to match the value of their property asset would require them to save at levels which would trigger a recession if not a depression as people stopped consuming.
The trick of continuing consumption combined with the safety net of asset values running well ahead of inflation has kept the "lifestyle" of much of Britain for the past 40-50 years. The rise of the Conservative vote in the north and midlands began when Thatcher encouraged RTB and made houses assets and engines of wealth creation - it is the sons and daughters of those who exercised their right to buy their council tax who are the new Tory voters. They have wealth because they can own their homes and their home ownership was largely funded by inheritance provided from the assets their parents accumulated via the sale of their former council home which they were able to buy thanks to Thatcher.
But the 'wealth' from appreciating houses has to come from the buyer. So those that come to the market after the large rises now have to borrow more over longer time periods.
The younger generations are now expected to budget for significantly higher housing costs than their parents. They are subsidising asset growth through diminished disposable income.
My yearning for a curry - any curry, even fucking french duck gizzard curry - is now virtually homicidal
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Look out for French tacos. Nothing like the Mexican version.
Food to die for, or of.
Lots of good Tunisian cous cous restaurants too if you fancy a change.
In almost any British town, even tiny ones, you will find a decent Indian restaurant, a semi-decent Chinese, and a decent Thai
I used to decry this, as denoting the absence of a thriving national cuisine - now I see that it is something to be cherished - as long as we don’t neglect our own developing new British cuisine
I had lunch with a French tourist guy a couple of days ago, and he admitted he had about two curries in his whole life, and he mistrusted spices. He told me his father was very different and went to London a lot “and loves Indian food”
An illuminating conversation
You would think, if it wasn’t for French chauvinism, that every French town there would be a Cambodian and Vietnamese restaurant as we have Indians but they are sadly few and far between.
Their Chinese restaurants have been terrible in my experience although I look forward to arranging a visit to a place called Morlaix in Brittany as apparently it has great (for France maybe) curry houses alongside other nice reasons to go there.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
It's a weighty topic, but I'm a bit confused by "not enough people working and paying taxes to keep the economy growing". I don't really get what you mean there. Perhaps you mean not enough taxes to pay for the services that older people need?
I think one of the biggest things we could do is transform the way we think about housing. It shouldn't be a store of wealth or income, it should be a place you live. You only get past that by removing the scarcity, and that means build build build.
If accommodation is cheap, people will spend their money elsewhere, creating opportunities for investment in innovative goods and services. Stuff that people want rather than just ploughing it all into the necessities of life. And that will also make it SO much cheaper to support those people who cannot work because of age or infirmity.
It wouldn't be a painless transition, but it's the right one.
I think what I meant is whether those who are working are productive enough to be generating economic growth as well as there being enough working and paying tax to support the public spending to which we aspire.
The problem with taking the wealth out of housing is for many their property is their principal asset - the money they gain from its sale funds their pension and a lifestyle which allows them consumption which helps the Services side of the balance sheet. For these individuals to match the value of their property asset would require them to save at levels which would trigger a recession if not a depression as people stopped consuming.
The trick of continuing consumption combined with the safety net of asset values running well ahead of inflation has kept the "lifestyle" of much of Britain for the past 40-50 years. The rise of the Conservative vote in the north and midlands began when Thatcher encouraged RTB and made houses assets and engines of wealth creation - it is the sons and daughters of those who exercised their right to buy their council tax who are the new Tory voters. They have wealth because they can own their homes and their home ownership was largely funded by inheritance provided from the assets their parents accumulated via the sale of their former council home which they were able to buy thanks to Thatcher.
I think we are in for quite a bear market in housing, as interest rates take their bite. In turn that means that people treating their house as a pension pot are going to be a lot poorer than they expected. Paper gains will become paper losses and dominate the finances of the elderly.
It may not benefit the young much as higher interest rates will hit affordability.
That may be true for those who are buying now or have bought recently but if you have been in your property 20-25 years, I doubt a small reduction in prices is going to make a material difference. The truth is the housing market has been a one-way street for so long there are hundreds of thousands of people sitting on an asset which has appreciated far in advance of for example stocks and shares.
My old flat went for 250% of what I had paid for it 12 years earlier - I think Mrs Stodge's house is easily triple what she paid for it twenty years ago and given the demand here in East Ham for properties to be converted to rental accommodation it could easily go for more than that.
Tell me what else would give you that kind of return - backing my horse racing selections? I fear not.
As it took a generation for the impact of RTB to resonate through local economies, it will take a generation of stagnant or falling house prices to fundamentally change the economics of home ownership let alone the politics.
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
It's a weighty topic, but I'm a bit confused by "not enough people working and paying taxes to keep the economy growing". I don't really get what you mean there. Perhaps you mean not enough taxes to pay for the services that older people need?
I think one of the biggest things we could do is transform the way we think about housing. It shouldn't be a store of wealth or income, it should be a place you live. You only get past that by removing the scarcity, and that means build build build.
If accommodation is cheap, people will spend their money elsewhere, creating opportunities for investment in innovative goods and services. Stuff that people want rather than just ploughing it all into the necessities of life. And that will also make it SO much cheaper to support those people who cannot work because of age or infirmity.
It wouldn't be a painless transition, but it's the right one.
I think what I meant is whether those who are working are productive enough to be generating economic growth as well as there being enough working and paying tax to support the public spending to which we aspire.
The problem with taking the wealth out of housing is for many their property is their principal asset - the money they gain from its sale funds their pension and a lifestyle which allows them consumption which helps the Services side of the balance sheet. For these individuals to match the value of their property asset would require them to save at levels which would trigger a recession if not a depression as people stopped consuming.
The trick of continuing consumption combined with the safety net of asset values running well ahead of inflation has kept the "lifestyle" of much of Britain for the past 40-50 years. The rise of the Conservative vote in the north and midlands began when Thatcher encouraged RTB and made houses assets and engines of wealth creation - it is the sons and daughters of those who exercised their right to buy their council tax who are the new Tory voters. They have wealth because they can own their homes and their home ownership was largely funded by inheritance provided from the assets their parents accumulated via the sale of their former council home which they were able to buy thanks to Thatcher.
But the 'wealth' from appreciating houses has to come from the buyer. So those that come to the market after the large rises now have to borrow more over longer time periods.
The younger generations are now expected to budget for significantly higher housing costs than their parents. They are subsidising asset growth through diminished disposable income.
You're not wrong but those who have enjoyed the ride may be happy to take a small trim to get a sale - as you say, those coming in to the market now are going to find it a lot harder.
The other very important point you make is the cost of housing means less income for consumption or saving so the whole economy suffers if families need to devote more of their income to servicing mortgages.
My yearning for a curry - any curry, even fucking french duck gizzard curry - is now virtually homicidal
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Look out for French tacos. Nothing like the Mexican version.
Food to die for, or of.
Lots of good Tunisian cous cous restaurants too if you fancy a change.
In almost any British town, even tiny ones, you will find a decent Indian restaurant, a semi-decent Chinese, and a decent Thai
I used to decry this, as denoting the absence of a thriving national cuisine - now I see that it is something to be cherished - as long as we don’t neglect our own developing new British cuisine
I had lunch with a French tourist guy a couple of days ago, and he admitted he had about two curries in his whole life, and he mistrusted spices. He told me his father was very different and went to London a lot “and loves Indian food”
An illuminating conversation
You would think, if it wasn’t for French chauvinism, that every French town there would be a Cambodian and Vietnamese restaurant as we have Indians but they are sadly few and far between.
Their Chinese restaurants have been terrible in my experience although I look forward to arranging a visit to a place called Morlaix in Brittany as apparently it has great (for France maybe) curry houses alongside other nice reasons to go there.
Yes, absolutely!
I actually mentioned this to the French guy. I said “you guys colonised Indochina especially Vietnam, which has one of the best cuisines in the world, why aren’t there Vietnamese restaurants everywhere” and he looked blank, as in:
1. He wasn’t really aware France colonised Vietnam
2. He had no clue about Vietnamese cuisine - good bad or otherwise
My yearning for a curry - any curry, even fucking french duck gizzard curry - is now virtually homicidal
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Can't you find a Vesta curry in the local corner shop?
Non
I am moving on to self catering in a couple days, it will be interesting to see if I can conjure decent Asian food with their ingredients and my own skills
if you are currently in your 30s, don't have a defined benefit occupational pension and are not able to save 20% of your post-tax income, cutting the indexation of the state pension is about the worst thing the government could do to you.
What naïve claptrap.
Our generation have been screwed with the ladder pulled up every step of the way it seems.
Tuition fees imposed by people who were graduates themselves but wouldn't pay a graduate tax, only young people pay it.
Housing market absolutely FUBAR'd with minimal construction and rent expected to fund other people's untaxed income.
Pension age rising with young people who are demographically not the issue, who are a smaller cohort and life expectancy has plateaued rather than the boomers who had much longer life expectancy than their forebears and were demographically a larger cohort.
I fully expect to be taxed for pensions of the past, but not to get one myself. Indeed we are all advised to act that way and save for one on that assumption, despite the fact we also need to pay rent to landlords, and pensions of boomers, and graduate tax and everything else ... saving for a contributory pension while paying out for non contribution ones we won't get ourselves is fully expected on top.
The tuition fees was to allow the vast expansion of University education from 5-10% to 50% of people attending. It is also already a graduate tax (albeit not retrospective), but a at least you can pay off the debt. A standard tax on all graduates would never end, even if you paid many times over what the cost had been.
Let's look at the Prime Minister's who have imposed the tax and whether they're graduates.
Tony Blair, graduate of Oxford University. Gordon Brown, graduate of Edinburgh University. David Cameron, graduate of Oxford University. Liz Truss, graduate of Oxford University. Rishi Sunak, graduate of Oxford University.
Which of these have been paying 9% of their income as a Graduate Tax?
Instead it's been levied by them as taxes for us, but not for them.
Education expanded to cover all and was paid for out of general taxation. Continuing that with 1% on income tax if needed would have been far fairer than 9% on income tax for some but not others.
Younger generations than me have it even worse. Our fees weren't too steep, younger ones can face 9% higher taxes for life and will never repay it. That's obscene, to charge 9% extra income tax on some but not others.
You forgot Mr Johnson. And Ms May. No point in doing down your argumen t unnecessarily ...
Danger of typing on a mobile, I meant to include them and thought I had!
Both Oxford University too.
I got my tuition and fees paid, plus maintenance (mostly - rest from parents and some vac work, but not enough to get in the way of the study). Never forgotten it, and never been happy with their pulling up the ladder. Still less with the usurious interest rates charged.
The ladder has certainly not been pulled up. You can compare the number of admissions when you went to today.
That's an apple and coconuts comparison though.
Many universities today existed in the past, they were just called something else like a polytechnic and got renamed to universities, but a rose by any other name ...
Also many jobs today need degrees which didn't in the past.
If you get a fantastic job out of a degree, great, and you should be paying the appropriate level of income tax accordingly.
If you don't, but you're lumbered with a 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
And if you do, but you're lucky enough to be old enough that you're not paying for that 9% additional rate of income tax, then how is that reasonable?
A 60 year old graduate earning £95k not from salaried income pays a lower rate of tax than a 24 year old graduate earning £30k from salaried income. Is that truly reasonable?
No, I agree with you that the current setup needs to be reformed, but the underlying principle of those that benefit pay should be maintained.
As for old graduates not paying anything, probably too difficult (and perhaps legally so, too) to retroactively charge them. That problem will go away eventually on its own though.
Education benefits everyone, that's why its universally available. Keep the principles of universal education, and simply tax it out of income tax funded by everyone. Proportionately that will be graduates, and the graduates of the past too, not just young graduates at the start of their career.
And its not like university is something that you do at 18 or never. If its kept open as an option then many people can and do go to university later on in life as mature students and often with better success doing that as they by then have experience of working for years and know better what they want to do with their lives, like become a midwife or a teacher etc, rather than doing a sociology degree "just because" and not knowing what they want to do with it.
Isn’t it proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings, quite considerably in some cases? Why should the poorest in society that did not go to university pay for someone else to have the opportunity to earn more money. No. If you benefited from it, you should bear much of the burden to pay for it.
No, its not proven that going to university increases your lifetime earnings.
Going to university may increase your earnings, hence "in some cases" but ironically many of those studies are based on when fewer people were going to university and those people who did . . . *drumroll please* do not pay the graduate tax today.
So the people who benefited the most, by people an 'elite' few who were graduates when not many were, are the ones who don't pay taxes, whereas people who go to university because its expected and to not do so marks you out more than having done so, do pay. Utterly insane.
If you benefit, if you get high incomes - like Oxford University graduate Tony Blair has for instance, then you should be paying Income Tax.
But for some reason Oxford University graduate and multimillionaire Tony Blair felt it was a good idea if he didn't have to pay the tax, but others did instead.
There is no moral, ethical or economic justification for that.
So over a 40 year working life they will earn 460k more than a non graduate.
If you make university out of general taxation you would therefore reduce the extra 158k tax they pay (which exlcudes the loan repayment just using normal tax and ni) to a mere 98k over those 40 years,
So the average graduate would benefit to the tune of 360k over a 40 year working life. Seems fair to me they pay the cost and not the non graduate. Now where we agree is the interest on the loans is too high and in my opinion should be set at the base rate
If they earn extra then they pay extra, via both tax and NI.
But why should high earning graduates like Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak all be on a 9% lower income tax rate than their younger compatriots?
If you are arguing that older graduates should be surcharged thats fine. I just disagree that a non graduate shelf stacker in tesco's should have to pay more tax so people who are going to personally benefit several hundred thousand in pay over a working lifetime so you can have a free legup. I also suggested that i agree with you the interest is far to high. But it is clear the major financial benefit goes to the graduate not the state
But my proposal is to replace the 9% discriminatory income tax currently levied with an extra 1% income tax paid by everyone.
If your hypothesis that graduates earn more is correct, then they'll pay more, even under my proposal. But it'd be consistently applied.
A non graduate shelf stacker is net a beneficiary from the state anyway and not a high income tax payer anyway.
Why should I have to pay for your extra earnings? You will benefit far more than the state.
You don't. The earner pays more.
Education should be universally available to everyone so that they can be the best version of themselves.
If they succeed in education, then they pay income tax and that more than repays their education.
The problem is past generations of graduates who themselves benefited from free education but decided to welch on paying taxes to support the next generation in turn.
Then suggest a graduate tax levied on all graduates. I dont see why those of us that didn't goto university should fund you. The degree makes more for you than the state by a good margin
Because everyone has education and opportunities for it. You were educated yourself too I assume, if you were illiterate and innumerate I doubt you could do your job?
If you're a high earner, then pay income tax. If being a graduate facilitates high earning, that is already met in income tax. No need for double taxation.
Total bollocks, not everyone has opportunity for university. For a start average iq is 110. Half the people are less intelligent than that. You think university is for them. Then there are people like me that could of gone to university intellectualy but couldn't because of rl reasons. It is idiotic to think everyone has that opportunity therefore
Er, given your basic misunderstanding of IQ, I think maybe a University education would have done you some good, broaden your knowledge and improve your critical thinking etc. ;-)
What basic misunderstanding.....i am aware IQ is not a good measure it is what we have....sorry but its true a lot of people will never be able to get a degree was my point. Either because they lack the intellect or as I said because rl prohibits them from doing a degree.
Do you believe 100% of people are capable of attaining a degree? If not give me a ball park figure for the percentage capable? I went with the iq thing as its all we have
But its not all we have. There's a reason people who study these things no longer take IQ seriously and instead it tends to be quoted by people like Leon.
The difference between people who can make it to university and those who can not is not primarily intelligence they're born with, its the issues of mindset and support primarily.
Intelligence is developed, its not innate.
If a child isn't supported, if they're not read to as a child, if they have poor parents or teachers, then yes they might struggle to thrive.
But if they have good parents, good teachers and the right mindset, then there's little reason why they can't succeed.
Mindset is the biggest difference. Too many people have a fixed mindset of thinking "I can't do this".
But if you have a growth mindset then you can add the word "yet". "I can't do this, yet" is completely different to I can't do this.
With a growth mindset people think that they have potential to do well, so they put in the effort, which leads to successful actions, which leads to good results, which reinforces their self-confidence, which means they believe in their own potential and it creates a virtuous circle.
To answer what percentage of people are capable of attaining a degree, then at 21 that'll be not everyone. But with the right support, and the right mindset, then I'd estimate well over 90% "could" do it.
While I agree with you about mindset it doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents dont support, dont encourage and dont value education. Saw it all the time at school and my parents view was dont fucking bother you will be in the fishing fleet like all the rest. Been there done that. However because a lot will believe there parents and take it to heart university education will never be something all can do. Bollocks though to 90% some people more than 10% dont have the capability unless you hand out degrees for attending
Why don't they?
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
Most people later in life dont have the opportunity, they cant just quit work and go get a degree they have a family they can barely afford working often two jobs or one job with a lot of overtime to do it.
Just because not everyone has the opportunity, is that a reason to deny the opportunity to those who can?
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
I didnt say it should be discouraged. my point was those that don't shouldn't have to pay for your indulgence which is going to end up you getting a shed load more money (on average)
But again going back full circle, education is not an indulgence, and if you get a shed load of money afterwards then you pay taxes on that, which funds others being educated in the future too.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
You only get taxed 0% if you already paid more than the other fellow.
Yes but why should it go to 0% if the tax [and is meant to be] income-related?
Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Because it is meant to fund a degree, not just to be a money pot for goodies. There is more than enough money pot for goodies already, it's called every other tax in existence.
That's the point, it shouldn't be another tax, we should just have one income-related tax, income tax. No new taxes, no national insurance, no graduate tax, no inconsistency in tax rates.
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
Would you support a graduate tax of say 3% applying to all graduates both new and old?
What we should have is higher fees for those who study law, medicine, economics and higher earning subjects and lower fees for those who study arts and humanities subjects. With government subsidising fees for some key subjects like engineering and nursing.
Those fees could still all be paid post graduation with loans when studying
Higher earning graduates do pay back more.
People don't believe this, but the thirty year write-off thing was a deliberate part of the original scheme, and makes it socially progressive. Graduates who earn megabucks pay more each month, get closer to paying off the loan and have a small write-off at the end. Those who earn less pay a smaller amount and have most of the debt written off. That was always the intention.
Much better than trying to tie it to courses studied. A law graduate may spend their career doing pro bono work for an advice centre. An arts grad may make a fortune in advertising. That's one of the problems with HE funding- you can't tell which individual students are going to make loadsamoney.
Some of the wrangling about this is bad faith by politicians. But it's probably also the case that the 2010 scheme was too clever by half, so that subsequent improvements have made it worse, because people don't understand the mechanism.
That can be accounted for by repayments post graduation for discrepancies.
Much better than the ludicrous system now where a student of Economics at Cambridge who becomes a banker or a student of law at Oxford who becomes a city law firm partner or QC pays the same fee as someone studing creative arts at Man Met or nursing or primary teaching at Southampton Solent
My yearning for a curry - any curry, even fucking french duck gizzard curry - is now virtually homicidal
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Can't you find a Vesta curry in the local corner shop?
Non
I am moving on to self catering in a couple days, it will be interesting to see if I can conjure decent Asian food with their ingredients and my own skills
I found in France that if you want to make any sort of Asian food you needed to go to a few different supermarkets to get Al the ingredients. There were never all the component parts in one shop as we would expect in the UK. They were slowly getting better but their ready made pastes or spice mixes were often really very shit and mostly very bland and missing something.
My yearning for a curry - any curry, even fucking french duck gizzard curry - is now virtually homicidal
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Look out for French tacos. Nothing like the Mexican version.
Food to die for, or of.
Lots of good Tunisian cous cous restaurants too if you fancy a change.
In almost any British town, even tiny ones, you will find a decent Indian restaurant, a semi-decent Chinese, and a decent Thai
I used to decry this, as denoting the absence of a thriving national cuisine - now I see that it is something to be cherished - as long as we don’t neglect our own developing new British cuisine
I had lunch with a French tourist guy a couple of days ago, and he admitted he had about two curries in his whole life, and he mistrusted spices. He told me his father was very different and went to London a lot “and loves Indian food”
An illuminating conversation
You would think, if it wasn’t for French chauvinism, that every French town there would be a Cambodian and Vietnamese restaurant as we have Indians but they are sadly few and far between.
Their Chinese restaurants have been terrible in my experience although I look forward to arranging a visit to a place called Morlaix in Brittany as apparently it has great (for France maybe) curry houses alongside other nice reasons to go there.
Yes, absolutely!
I actually mentioned this to the French guy. I said “you guys colonised Indochina especially Vietnam, which has one of the best cuisines in the world, why aren’t there Vietnamese restaurants everywhere” and he looked blank, as in:
1. He wasn’t really aware France colonised Vietnam
2. He had no clue about Vietnamese cuisine - good bad or otherwise
Imagine a Brit not comprehending “curry”
Oddly enough - I've been watching (deep breath) an Australian cookery show presented by a Aussie of Vietnamese heritage cooking in the regions of France.
(breaths out)
A decent number of references to Vietnamese dishes that have taken on French aspects. But zero interest or appreciation in the other direction. To a quite noticeable extent.
Comments
Biden just continued with the policy.
Seems notably tangential to the Peninsular War.
Trump is such a moron. No wonder the Russians picked him as their perfect asset in the US.
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1701965553315848256
If people put the right effort in, and have the right support, then there's little reason why people can't. Non-selective private schools can achieve close to 100% of pupils getting into university, so why can't 90% of the general population without ?
Plus of course yes a lot of people think "don't bother" but life doesn't end at 18. As I said before a lot of people don't go to university at 18 but then later in life think "I could do this" and do - often to do with an intended career plan by that point, not doing sociology either. That's not something that should be discouraged with a 9% tax increase in my view.
And that's the stupid situation the man-child Musk has led himself to: by asserting he has God-like powers over everything he touches, events outside his control could be seen to be as a result of his touch.
Certainly if I was Ukraine, I might use Starlink sparingly, and expect service outages. A backup for autonomous systems, at best.
If I was CEO of a large company, there's zero chance I'd make my company rely on Starlink. Because Musky Baby could just decide to pull the plug on my service because he split up with yet another wife.
Bush launched the invasion and toppled the Taliban, Obama killed Bin Laden, Biden enabled the Taliban to return
I know multiple people who left school at 16 or 18 without decent qualifications who returned to education afterwards and have done well - and are paying more tax and/or not receiving benefits anymore as a result.
That's not something that should be discouraged.
Putin wouldn't understand that. He, like Trump, sees no advantage in free democracy or accepting your opponent won.
That doesn't exist in the UK, all the apps are a joke, people don't really use them. In this context the problem is that the closure of the ticket offices is premature.
On the anniversary of the incompetent Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour Leader, I ask, who has been the worst former Leader of the Labour Party in the 21st century?
#Labour #LabourParty #Conservative #ConservativeParty #JeremyCorbyn #EdMiliband #GordonBrown #TonyBlair #Politics
Jeremy Corbyn
13.8%
Ed Miliband
11%
Gordon Brown
5.7%
Tony Blair
69.5%
It’s often seemed silly to me that we demand that teenagers fix the course of their lives by picking a degree. And have the expectation they will always be right.
Bursaries for mature students? Targeting skills that are in shortage?
And most of the lecturers hated him for it. The exceptions being the couple who had also spent years actually engineering things.
If someone like Blair goes to Oxford University and gets multi-millions afterwards as a result then how much tax should he pay?
Currently the tax system doesn't tax those earning shed loads as people like Blair are on a 0% graduate tax as they exempted themselves from it.
Ditto if you make phone number salaries in the City then you quickly end up on a 0% graduate tax, as you've paid off the graduate tax and its capped.
Whereas if you graduate and get a middle job then you can end up on a 9% higher income tax rate for decades.
Why should those earning shed loads pay 0% while those earning middle amounts pay 9%?
Wouldn't taxing them all evenly 1% be better than taxing shed load earners at 0% and middle income earners at 9%?
Now I am doing ok pay wise and probably earning more than some graduates. If I pay over a lifetime 200k tax for example....thats 200k to the public purse. If a graduate when things are free earns the same as me and over a life time pays the same 200k tax.....in reality they have only paid circa 140k tax when you remove the cost of their education....bart wants me therefore to subsidize them for a chance I never had a choice to exercise
I don’t have an issue with the principle of student loans for going to Uni. I generally agree with Pagan. What I do think is wrong and needs reform is the interest rate applied which seems punitive especially when compared to base rate. 13.5% is, what, 8% or so above base rate. It’s way in excess of inflation too. With the power of compounding some people will never pay it off.
Incheon urged to maximize potential to replace Hong Kong
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=359092
...Korea's use of English as a foreign language, instead of the official language, was mentioned as another obstacle to Incheon's goal during the discussion session, which also provided simultaneous interpretation.
"The reason why German investment goes to Hong Kong and Singapore is their English-speaking people," the KGCCI president said. "The language is so important for foreigners to come."
British Chamber of Commerce in Korea (BCCK) Executive Director Lucinda Walker agreed that the inconvenience in using English has partially caused difficulties in attracting foreign investors to Korea, although she recognized Incheon for making efforts to change that...
- Education is good for society.
- Education allows everyone to do the best for themselves and their family.
- People who are well educated pay more tax.
- People who are well educated claim less in benefits.
- The taxpayer is better off for having had education, which affords paying for the next generation of education.
- Everyone should have a chance to exercise education, including later in life.
The list goes on and on.Surely a 1% income tax for those earning shed loads is more reasonable than a 9% income tax for those who are not?
Barty often rails about welfare for pensioners yet is sitting here arguing that university students should get welfare handouts. Is it just me wondering if its because he was a uni student but not yet a pensioner?
If there's more than enough money already, pay for education with that money.
But I don't think graduating or taking part in education is an externality to be discouraged, so it should just be income tax at whatever rate.
Graduates will pay more income tax (on average) anyway, and claim less in benefits too, so the Exchequer is better off anyway.
My boss called me halfway through the day and asked if I could work my day off tomorrow
I was far politer in reply than I needed to be; I'm having a day off
There is also an adult version, which is taken by some 10s of thousands of people each year.
Generally both are available free to the learner, though the adult one may be a touch more tricky to access.
I did it when I started cycling again more extensively around 10 years ago. It is very good.
My idea of a nickname for the Prime Minister - "Rishi Setback" - because everything he says and does sets the Tories back in the polls.
I'll get me stoat...
The overwhelming consensus is that intelligence is a mix of nature and nurture, heredity and environment. All twin studies show this
Tut
As for IQ tests - they are flawed, like all psychological tests. Human are difficult, the human brain is near-infinitely complex. But no one doubts that intelligence exists - there are bright people and dumb people - and IQ seems to measure something adjacent to this. Moreover, it is the best test of intelligence we have. No one has devised a satisfactory and superior replacement even if “the IQ test” is theatrically reviled, generally for ideological reasons
SATs are basically IQ tests
Those fees could still all be paid post graduation with loans when studying
Certainly Coumcils near or over the edge are from both parties.
I can't fathom why Sunaik did his "Ner Ner Ner Birmingham" schoolyard rant, when Northamptonshire, Woking and Thurrock, all Tory, are in the same boat without the excuse of a Equal Pay settlement.
If the student gets financial returns, they'll pay income tax anyway, so why do they need another tax on top of that? We don't need more taxes, we're taxed enough already.
But all State schools do "ease out" difficult pupils to a greater or lesser degree. Few will admit it publicly, mind.
QED intelligence is developed.
I'm right, from your own words.
*drop mic*
*edges quietly away*
And if I was being selfish, then it would be the case that I'll never be a student again, but I will be a pensioner at some point, so no that's not it.
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the 2012 Republican nominee for president who made a historic break with his party when he voted to remove former President Donald J. Trump from office, announced on Wednesday that he would not seek re-election in 2024, saying he wanted to make way for a “new generation of leaders.”
The problem is twofold - too many people living too long and linked to it not enough people working and paying taxes to keep the economy growing.
Anne McElvoy in tonight's Standard has written what I consider a thoughful piece:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/wages-rise-gdp-falls-economy-tories-conservatives-b1106742.html
The silly thing is we are not a poor country - indeed, there's a huge amount of wealth but it's locked up either in bricks and mortar or in other assets. Keeping saving rates so low for so long has proven to be a big mistake as, to be fair, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum argued.
Is there a viable policy here around releasing wealth and making it work for the country - a public bond or sovereign fund or investment bank funded by the public which could be used to invest in infrastructure or other long term sensible capital projects?
The economic model we followed from the mid 90s to 2008 - the era of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, came to a sudden end with the fall of Lehmann Brothers and while that wrecked the centre-left's reputation for sound economic management, Covid has now undermined the centre right's record.
The search for a new viable economic model for the 2030s and beyond has begiun - how to reconcile growth and sustainability, how to release wealth, how to create new wealth from a demographically changing population - all these are tough for any party to solve and require thinking outside the usual ideological boxes.
- Stephen Kotkin (great lad, btw): Phillips Payson O'Brien wrote this great book!
- Phillips Payson O'Brien: I wrote this book about how manufacturing decides wars!
- David Edgerton: Oi, that's my idea
[EDIT: If you believe you can plot the number of tanks being destroyed down to zero, Kotkin explains why that's gibberish]Labour: 46% (+2)
Conservative: 24% (-2)
Liberal Democrat: 10% (=)
Green: 7% (=)
Reform: 6% (-1)
SNP: 4% (=)
The weighted England sample has Labour on 48%, Conservative 26% and LD 11% which compares with 47-25-13 from the weighted R&W sample.
People don't believe this, but the thirty year write-off thing was a deliberate part of the original scheme, and makes it socially progressive. Graduates who earn megabucks pay more each month, get closer to paying off the loan and have a small write-off at the end. Those who earn less pay a smaller amount and have most of the debt written off. That was always the intention.
Much better than trying to tie it to courses studied. A law graduate may spend their career doing pro bono work for an advice centre. An arts grad may make a fortune in advertising. That's one of the problems with HE funding- you can't tell which individual students are going to make loadsamoney.
Some of the wrangling about this is bad faith by politicians. But it's probably also the case that the 2010 scheme was too clever by half, so that subsequent improvements have made it worse, because people don't understand the mechanism.
I posted something a week or so ago in response to a cyclefree message which I still think would be useful:
I would like to see a govt introduce “national infrastructure bonds” where the revenue is managed by a standalone non-government body and all local councils can apply for chunks of the money with submission of a plan.
The funds generated are absolutely ringfenced for infrastructure and nothing else.
The councils don’t lose funds from their budgets for the day to day stuff but can get a big boost of a hundred million for an essential housing development and ring road, private companies could borrow large fixed sums at a known rate from the pot as well so that they could spread the cost of, for example a new reservoir, over a known period.
The bonds are backed by government at an attractive but not crippling rate and so attractive to overseas pension funds and sovereign funds so has benefit of big government involvement but also big benefit of decisions on spending being removed from big government to a micro level where the local gov or private companies can really see a practical benefit and need.
The cost of servicing this debt has to come out of overall government spending however at least tax payers see that a chunk of this spending is going purely to long term rebuilding of the country which is good for them, their children and their grandchildren.
You can legitimately argue about the efficiency of particular details of the education system, but not about its being a net benefit to the economy of the country.
The mediocrity is inescapable
* a healthy old age is not a problem, it is a tremendous pleasure and a benefit to society.
3 days in remote rural France and I will murder for the taste of chili and garam masala
Food to die for, or of.
Lots of good Tunisian cous cous restaurants too if you fancy a change.
The problem with taking the wealth out of housing is for many their property is their principal asset - the money they gain from its sale funds their pension and a lifestyle which allows them consumption which helps the Services side of the balance sheet. For these individuals to match the value of their property asset would require them to save at levels which would trigger a recession if not a depression as people stopped consuming.
The trick of continuing consumption combined with the safety net of asset values running well ahead of inflation has kept the "lifestyle" of much of Britain for the past 40-50 years. The rise of the Conservative vote in the north and midlands began when Thatcher encouraged RTB and made houses assets and engines of wealth creation - it is the sons and daughters of those who exercised their right to buy their council tax who are the new Tory voters. They have wealth because they can own their homes and their home ownership was largely funded by inheritance provided from the assets their parents accumulated via the sale of their former council home which they were able to buy thanks to Thatcher.
It may not benefit the young much as higher interest rates will hit affordability.
I used to decry this, as denoting the absence of a thriving national cuisine - now I see that it is something to be cherished - as long as we don’t neglect our own developing new British cuisine
I had lunch with a French tourist guy a couple of days ago, and he admitted he had about two curries in his whole life, and he mistrusted spices. He told me his father was very different and went to London a lot “and loves Indian food”
An illuminating conversation
The younger generations are now expected to budget for significantly higher housing costs than their parents. They are subsidising asset growth through diminished disposable income.
Their Chinese restaurants have been terrible in my experience although I look forward to arranging a visit to a place called Morlaix in Brittany as apparently it has great (for France maybe) curry houses alongside other nice reasons to go there.
My old flat went for 250% of what I had paid for it 12 years earlier - I think Mrs Stodge's house is easily triple what she paid for it twenty years ago and given the demand here in East Ham for properties to be converted to rental accommodation it could easily go for more than that.
Tell me what else would give you that kind of return - backing my horse racing selections? I fear not.
As it took a generation for the impact of RTB to resonate through local economies, it will take a generation of stagnant or falling house prices to fundamentally change the economics of home ownership let alone the politics.
The other very important point you make is the cost of housing means less income for consumption or saving so the whole economy suffers if families need to devote more of their income to servicing mortgages.
I actually mentioned this to the French guy. I said “you guys colonised Indochina especially Vietnam, which has one of the best cuisines in the world, why aren’t there Vietnamese restaurants everywhere” and he looked blank, as in:
1. He wasn’t really aware France colonised Vietnam
2. He had no clue about Vietnamese cuisine - good bad or otherwise
Imagine a Brit not comprehending “curry”
I am moving on to self catering in a couple days, it will be interesting to see if I can conjure decent Asian food with their ingredients and my own skills
Much better than the ludicrous system now where a student of Economics at Cambridge who becomes a banker or a student of law at Oxford who becomes a city law firm partner or QC pays the same fee as someone studing creative arts at Man Met or nursing or primary teaching at Southampton Solent
(breaths out)
A decent number of references to Vietnamese dishes that have taken on French aspects. But zero interest or appreciation in the other direction. To a quite noticeable extent.