Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The government keeps saying it's a fairer system, with the minimum wage needed to start paying back the debt increased from £15,000 a year to £21,000. However, with the new system (and possibly the old one) people who do a 'Worthwhile' degree and get a well paid job are paying for those who do 'Mickey Mouse' degrees or simply don’t work hard enough. Those who go to uni for the experience and don't expect a good job from it are getting a free ride; as those who do work hard and get decent jobs after graduation have to pay the full whack.

    Am I missing something of does this seem unfair. However, I would like to say that although I don't like the new system I haven't seen many better alternatives…
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That's what a progressive system is. The people at the top pay for the people at the bottom.

    The alternatives are to extend or abolish the 30 year payment limit, or to charge higher interest rates to everyone, or to reduce or remove the £21,000 minimum wage threshold.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    The government keeps saying it's a fairer system, with the minimum wage needed to start paying back the debt lowered to 15,000 a year. However, with the new system (and possibly the old one) people who do a 'Worthwhile' degree and get a well paid job are paying for those who do 'Mickey Mouse' degrees or simply don’t work hard enough. Those who go to uni for the experience and don't expect a good job from it are getting a free ride; as those who do work hard and get decent jobs after graduation have to pay the full whack.

    Am I missing something of does this seem unfair. However, I would like to say that although I don't like the new system I haven't seen many better alternatives…
    You have a factual error in your first line: the threshold is being increased to £21,000 not decreased.

    Other than that, you are entirely correct; the new system is still unfair and those measures that were put in by the Coalition Govt. are just political moves made to make it easier to pass the bill. Just consider it a gradual step towards a truly free higher education sector.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    You have a factual error in your first line: the threshold is being increased to £21,000 not decreased.

    Other than that, you are entirely correct; the new system is still unfair and those measures that were put in by the Coalition Govt. are just political moves made to make it easier to pass the bill. Just consider it a gradual step towards a truly free higher education sector.
    Oh yeah, i'll change it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azimuth)
    That's what a progressive system is. The people at the top pay for the people at the bottom.

    The alternatives are to extend or abolish the 30 year payment limit, or to charge higher interest rates to everyone, or to reduce or remove the £21,000 minimum wage threshold.
    When looking at the alternatives, it does seem like this progressive system is probably the best of a bad bunch.

    I'm a bit on the fence at the moment with regards to an ideal system. I see a lot of people blindly stating "university education should be free, it's a right" and I do see that it is an arbitrary cut off point at 18 years old.

    However, the main problem with having free uni education is the fact that a lot of people are doing degrees that will have no benefit to the economy. Making the tax payer give these people a free ride is a bad idea.

    The only solution I can think of is having a level of subsidy, but bring in a lot more bursaries for science and engineering subjects and even a performance based fees could be introduced. This way those who will 'repay' the tax payer can have a greater level of their fees paid. That way if someone wants to piss away their time at uni they can, but it will be themselves who pay for it, not the tax payer, or as you say 'those at the top'. A system based on rewards for hard work will be the only fair one in my eyes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    a graduate tax is the best option.

    Therefore people will only go to university to do degrees that can land a big job so they can easily pay back the tax as well as earning.

    All the new system encourages is, take a mickey mouse degree and have a good time at university, don't worry about getting a job after university because unless you earn over £21,000 you won't pay it back so you will just have a free 3 years at university. There will be so many who do Advanced Equestrianism or Surfboard Studies now at the expense of the taxpayer knowing its never going to get them a job over £21,000 a year so they won't have to pay it back and it will be a free 3 years at uni - living a student life.

    Then it will be left to the computer scientists, medical students and law students and all the rest who do worthwhile degrees to fork up the extra for those who take stupid courses. Those who actually work hard will suffer in the long run now as they will have to pay back mass debts with loads of interest to cover the costs for those doing stupid courses.

    Well done coalition - you have made a wise decision - when Germany & the US are encouraging people to take respectable courses you just make it easier for those taking Mickey Mouse degrees.

    Thank God I'm going in 2011 so won't have as much debt.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    a graduate tax is the best option.

    Therefore people will only go to university to do degrees that can land a big job so they can easily pay back the tax as well as earning.

    All the new system encourages is, take a mickey mouse degree and have a good time at university, don't worry about getting a job after university because unless you earn over £21,000 you won't pay it back so you will just have a free 3 years at university. There will be so many who do Advanced Equestrianism or Surfboard Studies now at the expense of the taxpayer knowing its never going to get them a job over £21,000 a year so they won't have to pay it back and it will be a free 3 years at uni - living a student life.

    Then it will be left to the computer scientists, medical students and law students and all the rest who do worthwhile degrees to fork up the extra for those who take stupid courses. Those who actually work hard will suffer in the long run now as they will have to pay back mass debts with loads of interest to cover the costs for those doing stupid courses.

    Well done coalition - you have made a wise decision - when Germany & the US are encouraging people to take respectable courses you just make it easier for those taking Mickey Mouse degrees.

    Thank God I'm going in 2011 so won't have as much debt.
    The grad tax would be for life...?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    The grad tax would be for life...?
    I know meaning those who took mickey mouse degrees would have to pay back the same as everyone else meaning people would think before they took a degree due to the graduate tax on their incomes later on in life.

    Its a fair and balanced way to treat all graduates equally and tax them the same amount regardless of income.

    The current system means


    Medical student - higher income - pays more

    Mickey mouse degree student - lower income - pays either nothing or a little


    How is that fair on the medical student that has to work harder - why should those taking worthy degrees be punished financially because some choose to do surfboarding history or something?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    I know meaning those who took mickey mouse degrees would have to pay back the same as everyone else meaning people would think before they took a degree due to the graduate tax on their incomes later on in life.

    Its a fair and balanced way to treat all graduates equally and tax them the same amount regardless of income.

    The current system means


    Medical student - higher income - pays more

    Mickey mouse degree student - lower income - pays either nothing or a little


    How is that fair on the medical student that has to work harder - why should those taking worthy degrees be punished financially because some choose to do surfboarding history or something?
    Look at the reaction to the reforms by Students..now imagine if they wanted to implement your plan which would see them paying even more back...
    I dont think it would pass..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    I know meaning those who took mickey mouse degrees would have to pay back the same as everyone else meaning people would think before they took a degree due to the graduate tax on their incomes later on in life.

    Its a fair and balanced way to treat all graduates equally and tax them the same amount regardless of income.

    The current system means


    Medical student - higher income - pays more

    Mickey mouse degree student - lower income - pays either nothing or a little


    How is that fair on the medical student that has to work harder - why should those taking worthy degrees be punished financially because some choose to do surfboarding history or something?
    What about if you work hard, try to do a 'good' degree and still end up earning less than 21000. Is it fair that a person who earns less due to unforeseeable circumstances, has to be crippled with debt and struggle through life paying it back, whilst having a lower quality of life anyway? Would it then be fair that a person who earns a lot more living a comfortable life pays the same amount, despite living in relative luxury?

    Also, what is stopping all the scientists, engineers, doctors ect. from moving abroad to avoid paying the graduate tax?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    What about if you work hard, try to do a 'good' degree and still end up earning less than 21000. Is it fair that a person who earns less due to unforeseeable circumstances, has to be crippled with debt and struggle through life paying it back, whilst having a lower quality of life anyway? Would it then be fair that a person who earns a lot more living a comfortable life pays the same amount, despite living in relative luxury? Yes, everyone should pay equally. At the end of the day, the student chooses the course - no one forced them onto a Mickey Mouse course that has no future career prospects so they are responsible solely for that decision.

    Also, what is stopping all the scientists, engineers, doctors ect. from moving abroad to avoid paying the graduate tax? Whats stopping them now? Nothing.
    Obviously not.

    If every graduate had to pay back the same then they could set a rate of 25 years paying back £1000 each year. £1000/52 weeks = £19 per week which is not that much really.

    That's £25,000 guaranteed going back into the system and therefore money would get paid back in. It would also mean potential students thinking more wisely about the course choices they make.

    A lot under the current system do not pay back and even more won't under the new system with the £21,000 threshold. It will leave a void in the tax system, which unbelievably I can see Cameron and Clegg expecting the taxpayers to fork out more to cover.

    No one will do Mickey Mouse degrees as students will know it won't get them a good enough job to pay back the graduate tax after university. So therefore, more students will choose courses that benefit the economy and therefore will not only improve their own individual employment prospects but will be more beneficial to the economy in the long run, as graduate tax will be separate from normal taxation.

    Under the current system far too many are doing Mickey Mouse degrees and not paying back into the system so are getting the so called 'free ride through uni'.

    Its not fair on all those that work hard through university that they have to pay massive debts + interest to cover the debts of those who chose ridiculous subjects.

    Those who choose Mickey Mouse degrees should be expected to pay back just as everyone else is expected to.

    Why should those doing Mickey Mouse degrees get a free ride when they are of no benefit to the economy in the short or long term?

    1. the taxpayer has to initially pay for a loan to cover their course and maintenance

    2. they then don't get a job good enough to meet the threshold to pay back what they borrowed.


    A graduate tax means everyone goes into uni knowing what they will be expected to pay back into the system for the education they have received.

    Also, anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge who does a good degree as you say will not earn under £21,000 unless they move abroad and get a job a salary that provides good living in that country but doesn't compared to the exchange rate with the GBP.

    Considering the average graduate salary in the UK is around the £24,000-£26,000 mark then I think its fair to say that most will be able to pay that 19 per week for 25 years.

    Those who then become super earners should then be made by the government to make sponsorships to the institution that they obtained their degree from, just as is done in America. Thats another main issue here in the UK, that not that many graduates who go on to be majorly successful do not contribute back to the institution that educated them.

    Even if a graduate goes onto be a millionaire worth £1m, a 5% sponsorship payment of that to the institute that educated them is not that much realistically.

    Its only £50,000 which leaves them with £950,000 to themselves - if they are earning that much they are likely to make that £50,000 back rather quickly anyway.

    Maybe every ten years the graduates get assessed and a percentage is taken from what they are worth in a sort of thank you to the institution they were educated at. Obviously assessment is based on those in the super earner bracket - maybe those earning £250,000 per year +.

    If a Cambridge graduate goes on to be a world billionaire, lets say worth £2bn then 5% that would massively boost there funding and their international status in the long term, plus the billionaire graduate still has his life of luxury and will more than likely make that 5% back in interest alone, or even quicker if its being invested in something. Its exactly why Harvard is always at the top due to the funding they get from programmes and ex students.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Look at the reaction to the reforms by Students..now imagine if they wanted to implement your plan which would see them paying even more back...
    I dont think it would pass..
    How is it more?

    Some students graduate now with £30,000 worth of debt due to overdrafts and what not.

    Its a lot easier to just impose an equal graduate tax that all graduates have to pay.

    Even if they set it at £25,000 over 25 years then they would still get more money than they would now because even those on low incomes (most of which took Mickey Mouse or **** degrees) have to pay.

    £25000 over 25 years equates to £19 per week which is very reasonable to be fair.

    It would also put every single graduate on an equal financial footing straight out of university and every student would know what they would have to pay. As it would also be tax taken through the HMRC it would also cut out the over payment bull**** that the SLC are responsible for.


    Student A

    Comes out of university with a degree in Surfboarding and gets a job on £300 per week. £19 is deducted through graduate tax.

    Student B

    Comes out of university with a degree in Law and gets a job on £800 per week. £19 is deducted through graduate tax.


    How is that unfair?

    Student B clearly should be entitled to have money because they have

    1. Chosen a better degree with more prospects
    2. Are likely to pay more normal tax making them a bigger contributor to the economy
    3. Are more likely to have worked harder during university years so are now getting the rewards for it

    It will also mean less applying for Mickey Mouse courses and more applying for better courses with more lucrative prospects in the future and eventually Mickey Mouse degrees will be phased out through this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    Obviously not.

    If every graduate had to pay back the same then they could set a rate of 25 years paying back £1000 each year. £1000/52 weeks = £19 per week which is not that much really.

    That's £25,000 guaranteed going back into the system and therefore money would get paid back in. It would also mean potential students thinking more wisely about the course choices they make.

    A lot under the current system do not pay back and even more won't under the new system with the £21,000 threshold. It will leave a void in the tax system, which unbelievably I can see Cameron and Clegg expecting the taxpayers to fork out more to cover.

    No one will do Mickey Mouse degrees as students will know it won't get them a good enough job to pay back the graduate tax after university. So therefore, more students will choose courses that benefit the economy and therefore will not only improve their own individual employment prospects but will be more beneficial to the economy in the long run, as graduate tax will be separate from normal taxation.

    Under the current system far too many are doing Mickey Mouse degrees and not paying back into the system so are getting the so called 'free ride through uni'.

    Its not fair on all those that work hard through university that they have to pay massive debts + interest to cover the debts of those who chose ridiculous subjects.

    Those who choose Mickey Mouse degrees should be expected to pay back just as everyone else is expected to.

    Why should those doing Mickey Mouse degrees get a free ride when they are of no benefit to the economy in the short or long term?

    1. the taxpayer has to initially pay for a loan to cover their course and maintenance

    2. they then don't get a job good enough to meet the threshold to pay back what they borrowed.


    A graduate tax means everyone goes into uni knowing what they will be expected to pay back into the system for the education they have received.

    Also, anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge who does a good degree as you say will not earn under £21,000 unless they move abroad and get a job a salary that provides good living in that country but doesn't compared to the exchange rate with the GBP.

    Considering the average graduate salary in the UK is around the £24,000-£26,000 mark then I think its fair to say that most will be able to pay that 19 per week for 25 years.

    Those who then become super earners should then be made by the government to make sponsorships to the institution that they obtained their degree from, just as is done in America. Thats another main issue here in the UK, that not that many graduates who go on to be majorly successful do not contribute back to the institution that educated them.

    Even if a graduate goes onto be a millionaire worth £1m, a 5% sponsorship payment of that to the institute that educated them is not that much realistically.

    Its only £50,000 which leaves them with £950,000 to themselves - if they are earning that much they are likely to make that £50,000 back rather quickly anyway.

    Maybe every ten years the graduates get assessed and a percentage is taken from what they are worth in a sort of thank you to the institution they were educated at. Obviously assessment is based on those in the super earner bracket - maybe those earning £250,000 per year +.

    If a Cambridge graduate goes on to be a world billionaire, lets say worth £2bn then 5% that would massively boost there funding and their international status in the long term, plus the billionaire graduate still has his life of luxury and will more than likely make that 5% back in interest alone, or even quicker if its being invested in something. Its exactly why Harvard is always at the top due to the funding they get from programmes and ex students.
    There is an issue of deterrence here. If a student knows that if they don't get a well paid job, they will have to pay back a lot of debt. This will undoubtedly put students off from a poorer background. If an upper middle class person gets a poorly paid job, their debt is not as much of an issue (having richer parents). The main goal on an education system has to be equal opportunities for students of any background.

    Also, you're talking about billionaires giving money back to the uni that educated them. Surely that will increase the divide between the top unis i.e. Oxbridge and the lower ones.

    Would a better option not to uncap fees altogether, but offer a lot more bursaries and scholarships for students who:
    1) Come from a poorer background
    2) Study physics, engineering, chemistry, ect.
    3) Work hard. I.E. a performance based fees; if a student works hard they should be rewarded for it.

    This way students are rewarded for benefiting the economy, the system is equal regardless of background and those pupils who study ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees or fail to work hard have to pay more.

    Sounds fair?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    The government keeps saying it's a fairer system, with the minimum wage needed to start paying back the debt increased from £15,000 a year to £21,000. However, with the new system (and possibly the old one) people who do a 'Worthwhile' degree and get a well paid job are paying for those who do 'Mickey Mouse' degrees or simply don’t work hard enough. Those who go to uni for the experience and don't expect a good job from it are getting a free ride; as those who do work hard and get decent jobs after graduation have to pay the full whack.

    Am I missing something of does this seem unfair. However, I would like to say that although I don't like the new system I haven't seen many better alternatives…
    Well those with a good job will be paying it back, yes, but they will have a higher standard of living than those that don't have to pay it back, as they'll be earning more money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rzc)
    Well those with a good job will be paying it back, yes, but they will have a higher standard of living than those that don't have to pay it back, as they'll be earning more money.

    So you think it's OK that people who don't work hard or do 'Mickey Mouse' degrees, get a free ride through uni? Paid for by those who do work hard and obviously the tax payer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    I'm a bit on the fence at the moment with regards to an ideal system. I see a lot of people blindly stating "university education should be free, it's a right" and I do see that it is an arbitrary cut off point at 18 years old.
    It is only arbitrary in the sense that it is when the state decides you must be in education until. The argument for charging fees at university stems from the fact that education is no longer compulsory, rather than arbitrary choosing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    a graduate tax is the best option.

    Therefore people will only go to university to do degrees that can land a big job so they can easily pay back the tax as well as earning.

    All the new system encourages is, take a mickey mouse degree and have a good time at university, don't worry about getting a job after university because unless you earn over £21,000 you won't pay it back so you will just have a free 3 years at university. There will be so many who do Advanced Equestrianism or Surfboard Studies now at the expense of the taxpayer knowing its never going to get them a job over £21,000 a year so they won't have to pay it back and it will be a free 3 years at uni - living a student life.

    Then it will be left to the computer scientists, medical students and law students and all the rest who do worthwhile degrees to fork up the extra for those who take stupid courses. Those who actually work hard will suffer in the long run now as they will have to pay back mass debts with loads of interest to cover the costs for those doing stupid courses.

    Well done coalition - you have made a wise decision - when Germany & the US are encouraging people to take respectable courses you just make it easier for those taking Mickey Mouse degrees.

    Thank God I'm going in 2011 so won't have as much debt.
    Brilliant, TSR's most vocal tuition fee critic wants the poor to pay more and the rich to pay less. If only the world was as black and white as you're making it out to be.

    You sir, have no credibility
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    The government keeps saying it's a fairer system, with the minimum wage needed to start paying back the debt increased from £15,000 a year to £21,000. However, with the new system (and possibly the old one) people who do a 'Worthwhile' degree and get a well paid job are paying for those who do 'Mickey Mouse' degrees or simply don’t work hard enough. Those who go to uni for the experience and don't expect a good job from it are getting a free ride; as those who do work hard and get decent jobs after graduation have to pay the full whack.

    Am I missing something of does this seem unfair. However, I would like to say that although I don't like the new system I haven't seen many better alternatives…
    You're a cretin who seems to think the utilitarian approach is the only reason for a higher education.
    I read crap like this from people like you and despair for the future of the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    How is it more?

    Some students graduate now with £30,000 worth of debt due to overdrafts and what not.

    Its a lot easier to just impose an equal graduate tax that all graduates have to pay.

    Even if they set it at £25,000 over 25 years then they would still get more money than they would now because even those on low incomes (most of which took Mickey Mouse or **** degrees) have to pay.

    £25000 over 25 years equates to £19 per week which is very reasonable to be fair.

    It would also put every single graduate on an equal financial footing straight out of university and every student would know what they would have to pay. As it would also be tax taken through the HMRC it would also cut out the over payment bull**** that the SLC are responsible for.


    Student A

    Comes out of university with a degree in Surfboarding and gets a job on £300 per week. £19 is deducted through graduate tax.

    Student B

    Comes out of university with a degree in Law and gets a job on £800 per week. £19 is deducted through graduate tax.


    How is that unfair?

    Student B clearly should be entitled to have money because they have

    1. Chosen a better degree with more prospects
    2. Are likely to pay more normal tax making them a bigger contributor to the economy
    3. Are more likely to have worked harder during university years so are now getting the rewards for it

    It will also mean less applying for Mickey Mouse courses and more applying for better courses with more lucrative prospects in the future and eventually Mickey Mouse degrees will be phased out through this.
    What a ********!
    So only vocational degrees are worth anything now!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There have been too many mentions of mickey mouse and surfboards in this thread.....
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.