Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Yes, and they can pay the extra 5% once Labour get into power. They don't need to be paying a 9% tax when they're not earning anything like that amount. 

As I noted above, I'd be happy for a standard 2.5% tax on all graduates. 9% is ridiculous. That's taking the tax burden to well into the 40+% (inc. NI contributions). You spend your life arguing for lower taxation but somehow when it comes to recent graduates you've developed something of a blind spot. 

 

Perhaps 2.5% wouldn't raise enough?  Would you start paying that amount after the normal £11.5 k tax threshold we have atm? You can't just pluck figures from the air and assume that will cover it.

 

The present system is progressive, the highest earners pay the most and many won't pay anything at all.

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Perhaps 2.5% wouldn't raise enough?  Would you start paying that amount after the normal £11.5 k tax threshold we have atm? You can't just pluck figures from the air and assume that will cover it.

 

The present system is progressive, the highest earners pay the most and many won't pay anything at all.

 

 

From the Guardian:

 

Professor Andy Green, a specialist on learning and life chances at the Institute of Education, says the current loans system is “morally indefensible”. He says: “This generation in many respects is doing worse than their parents and it looks like they will continue to do so into their 30s and 40s. When they enter middle age and around two-thirds of them still can’t buy houses, and they are paying back large amounts on their graduate loans, that will be a big issue. There is a crisis brewing.”

Green says that following the election the government cannot avoid grasping the nettle. “Clearly young voters found the idea of getting rid of fees attractive. Fees are back on the political agenda.”

His preferred solution is for the government to scrap fees and loans in favour of an “all-age graduate tax”, with those who enjoyed free higher education also contributing to the cost of today’s university courses by paying an additional tax of about 2.5%. “This idea wasn’t politically sellable 10 years ago, but it is now,” he says. “People are realising the huge amount of debt young people are taking on is pretty inequitable. And we now know just how many people are not going to pay back those loans, landing the taxpayer with the debt. The system isn’t working.”

 

This idea would mean ALL graduates - new and old (so me and you) would pay the tax. I'd say that's fair. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yes, and they can pay the extra 5% once Labour get into power. They don't need to be paying a 9% tax when they're not earning anything like that amount. 

As I noted above, I'd be happy for a standard 2.5% tax on all graduates. 9% is ridiculous. That's taking the tax burden to well into the 40+% (inc. NI contributions). You spend your life arguing for lower taxation but somehow when it comes to recent graduates you've developed something of a blind spot. 

 

 

In a graduate tax system, how do you stop politicians redirecting funds away from universities? In the loan system, for accounting purposes, the government considers the debt an asset and doesn't include it in its tax forecasts. Money follows the student to the university. When the government stops being the underwriter, it becomes much easier for them to change university funding on a whim, so we get an underfunded service which you so deride in other public services. Now of course you could still have the same system but just reduce the repayments to 2.5% but very rapidly the system would collapse and again you get underfunded universities. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

From the Guardian:

 

Professor Andy Green, a specialist on learning and life chances at the Institute of Education, says the current loans system is “morally indefensible”. He says: “This generation in many respects is doing worse than their parents and it looks like they will continue to do so into their 30s and 40s. When they enter middle age and around two-thirds of them still can’t buy houses, and they are paying back large amounts on their graduate loans, that will be a big issue. There is a crisis brewing.”

Green says that following the election the government cannot avoid grasping the nettle. “Clearly young voters found the idea of getting rid of fees attractive. Fees are back on the political agenda.”

His preferred solution is for the government to scrap fees and loans in favour of an “all-age graduate tax”, with those who enjoyed free higher education also contributing to the cost of today’s university courses by paying an additional tax of about 2.5%. “This idea wasn’t politically sellable 10 years ago, but it is now,” he says. “People are realising the huge amount of debt young people are taking on is pretty inequitable. And we now know just how many people are not going to pay back those loans, landing the taxpayer with the debt. The system isn’t working.”

 

This idea would mean ALL graduates - new and old (so me and you) would pay the tax. I'd say that's fair. 

What about the graduates who have already paid off their loan? What if you went to Uni and ended up stacking shelves like KingGTF's mate did?

 

If that system was bought in it wouldn't bother me (I'm not a graduate btw, in before anyone says they can tell). I just don't think the present system is that bad.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What about the graduates who have already paid off their loan? What if you went to Uni and ended up stacking shelves like KingGTF's mate did?

 

If that system was bought in it wouldn't bother me (I'm not a graduate btw, in before anyone says they can tell). I just don't think the present system is that bad.

I've paid off the majority of my loan but would accept a 2.5% tax for the common good. 

You can set the starting point where you like. That would presumably be down to the government to calculate. 

 

5 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

In a graduate tax system, how do you stop politicians redirecting funds away from universities? In the loan system, for accounting purposes, the government considers the debt an asset and doesn't include it in its tax forecasts. Money follows the student to the university. When the government stops being the underwriter, it becomes much easier for them to change university funding on a whim, so we get an underfunded service which you so deride in other public services. Now of course you could still have the same system but just reduce the repayments to 2.5% but very rapidly the system would collapse and again you get underfunded universities. 

We'd be moving back to direct government payments to universities. This could easily be calculated by student numbers. 

Let's get back to realistic university funding rather than allowing them to raise tuition fees to maximum levels which keep rising despite the fact the majority of courses involve about 5 hours a week tuition. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What about the graduates who have already paid off their loan? What if you went to Uni and ended up stacking shelves like KingGTF's mate did?

 

If that system was bought in it wouldn't bother me (I'm not a graduate btw, in before anyone says they can tell). I just don't think the present system is that bad.

You must be getting old pal, that was Innovindil. My mates are too busy doing masters course to prolong their stay and avoid the real world for an extra year

 

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

We'd be moving back to direct government payments to universities. This could easily be calculated by student numbers. 

Let's get back to realistic university funding rather than allowing them to raise tuition fees to maximum levels which keep rising despite the fact the majority of courses involve about 5 hours a week tuition. 

 

But the reason the whole system was brought in in the first place was because universities were being underfunded, partly because it was on the whim of the chancellor. I've just read about this guys proposal and he says it would raise £3.8bn but currently funding is at £11bn. That's a potential £7.2bn that universities could lose because the government can now play around with the figures rather than just underwriting a loan. If you're tracking by student numbers, what are you paying per student? Is it less than 9.25k so universities lose funding? Or is it the same amount? And if it is the same amount then why does the system need to change? (I accept you might want a lower repayment).

 

I don't see much 'value' in my 9k a year tbf, but then the LSE is notoriously bad for teaching and student satisfaction. But I guess I am paying for the headed piece of paper and nothing else. Well I won't get that now (unless I make a u-turn) but I can understand why people complain about value.

Edited 11 July 2017 by KingGTF

[Smudge]

Aren't loans based on risk? For a house at say 3% the collateral is in the property and recoverable.

With a student loan, who knows if they will recover their cash and the risk is much higher.

The interest rate will have to cover bad debts otherwise the funding will be bankrupt.

 

Edited 11 July 2017 by Smudge

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, KingGTF said:

You must be getting old pal, that was Innovindil. My mates are too busy doing masters course to prolong their stay and avoid the real world for an extra year

 

 

But the reason the whole system was brought in in the first place was because universities were being underfunded, partly because it was on the whim of the chancellor. I've just read about this guys proposal and he says it would raise £3.8bn but currently funding is at £11bn. That's a potential £7.2bn that universities could lose because the government can now play around with the figures rather than just underwriting a loan. If you're tracking by student numbers, what are you paying per student? Is it less than 9.25k so universities lose funding? Or is it the same amount? And if it is the same amount then why does the system need to change? (I accept you might want a lower repayment).

Oops, my bad. Sorry about that. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

What we really need to look at is why so many people are going to university now.

 

Back in the 1980s-90s we could afford to fully fund Universities because people were not going there to do certain less academic courses. Id argue their are too many fluffy courses on offer now.

 

I would suggest that some professions would be better suited to apprenticeship/technical on the job training, part or fully funded by employers.

 

I personally believe a lot of people go to University at the moment because the education system pushes them down that path, when actually they might be better off taking a different non academic path. We have a shortage of tradesmen and these jobs are looked down upon by academics, but the money is damn good if you put in the work.

Edited 11 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

You must be getting old pal, that was Innovindil. My mates are too busy doing masters course to prolong their stay and avoid the real world for an extra year

 

 

But the reason the whole system was brought in in the first place was because universities were being underfunded, partly because it was on the whim of the chancellor. I've just read about this guys proposal and he says it would raise £3.8bn but currently funding is at £11bn. That's a potential £7.2bn that universities could lose because the government can now play around with the figures rather than just underwriting a loan. If you're tracking by student numbers, what are you paying per student? Is it less than 9.25k so universities lose funding? Or is it the same amount? And if it is the same amount then why does the system need to change? (I accept you might want a lower repayment).

But as things stand we're writing off huge chunks of debt so the government is effectively funding universities already.

There needs to be a huge rethink of the whole thing. Whether its the system I have pointed to or not, we cannot continue with what we have. A 9% tax on earnings over 21% is WAY too much. It is completely unreasonable to object to 5% on over £80k but accept 9% on over £21k.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

What we really need to look at is why so many people are going to university now.

 

Back in the 1980s-90s we could afford to fully fund Universities because people were not going there to do certain less academic courses. Id argue their are too many fluffy courses on offer now.

 

I would suggest that some professions would be better suited to apprenticeship/technical on the job training, part or fully funded by employers.

 

I personally believe a lot of people go to University at the moment because the education system pushes them down that path, when actually they might be better off taking a different no academic path. We have a shortage of trademens and these jobs are looked down upon by academics, but the money is damn good if you put in the work.

I don't disagree with this. But successive governments, including this one, have aimed for large numbers of graduates. We absolutely need to present our young with a range of options to cater for every need and to give different ways of entering work. I don't understand why we need to penalise one group of young people simply because they have the acumen to become the graduates that both government and industry ask for. Potential earnings isn't a good enough excuse in my opinion. We all know that potential earnings figures are boosted by the ultra high earners and I can certainly say that the majority of my friends that didn't attend university now earn more than me despite a degree in Physics. 

 

Also, whilst I recognise many degrees look pointless on paper (media studies) - in the majority of cases (basically all social science degrees and any others that primarily require the writing of essays) they are not actually there to teach on a subject - despite appearances - they are there to demark individuals that have the capacity to take in information and use it to form rationale arguments. Gaining these degrees shows employers that somebody is able to grasp concepts and make decisions based on evidence. A 1st in media studies and a 1st in history are really much over muchness - both are a test of these things and an individual's essay writing skills. The ideas being written about may be different but the processes being tested are broadly similar. There may be some jobs that require specific knowledge but the vast majority simply want to see a grade for these reasons.

[David Guiza]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

What we really need to look at is why so many people are going to university now.

 

Back in the 1980s-90s we could afford to fully fund Universities because people were not going there to do certain less academic courses. Id argue their are too many fluffy courses on offer now.

 

I would suggest that some professions would be better suited to apprenticeship/technical on the job training, part or fully funded by employers.

 

I personally believe a lot of people go to University at the moment because the education system pushes them down that path, when actually they might be better off taking a different non academic path. We have a shortage of tradesmen and these jobs are looked down upon by academics, but the money is damn good if you put in the work.

From my experience, a few years ago, there was definitely a push towards people to go to University/some form of further education, however it wasn't driven into us at all. I think the bigger problem is that there is so little information for anybody say 14+ years of age on how to forge a career in so many areas of work. I was lucky in that my Dad worked in a solicitors office where I was able to obtain work experience and decided to go to University and work in that field myself. However, the work experience I undertook in year 10 was very much a case of 'go wherever you can' and I ended up working for a fortnight in Cossington Street Leisure Centre which was utterly dreadful and taught me absolutely nothing other than that i didn't want to work in that field of work.

 

I think University and any further education should be as free and accessible to anybody however, not because i'm a free-loading lefty who has a Utopian vision of the future whereby everything is free, but because I think education of any sort is a fundamental right. I understand that it is not financially viable to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to study fine art on a whim for free, however those with a burning desire to learn and better themselves should not be put off because of cost in a country such as ours. I would absolutely love to do a masters and possibly even a PHD, but it is just not cost effective at all. I want to learn as much as I can whilst i'm on this planet, and i'd like to think that i'm not alone in that. University courses of all levels, to me, are fundamental and should be not saved for this wealthy enough to afford, or only those who wish to become a doctor, lawyer etc. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But as things stand we're writing off huge chunks of debt so the government is effectively funding universities already.

There needs to be a huge rethink of the whole thing. Whether its the system I have pointed to or not, we cannot continue with what we have. A 9% tax on earnings over 21% is WAY too much. It is completely unreasonable to object to 5% on over £80k but accept 9% on over £21k.

 

Well the IFS models that under the current system, £6.5bn is repaid of the £11bn. So graduates are funding universities more than under the graduate tax system. I note that you didn't actually answer any of the questions. I think the problem lies in the fact people see student debt as a debt which it quite clearly isn't. It in now way performs like a debt. I accept 9% over 21k isn't ideal and someone on average wage loses £600 a year. And I think the problem lies with expecting tuition to be free because it used to be, completely ignoring the difference in numbers going to university. If we want top class universities then we need to pay for them which we are doing satisfactorily right now so I'm reticent to alter things.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Well the IFS models that under the current system, £6.5bn is repaid of the £11bn. So graduates are funding universities more than under the graduate tax system. I note that you didn't actually answer any of the questions. I think the problem lies in the fact people see student debt as a debt which it quite clearly isn't. It in now way performs like a debt. I accept 9% over 21k isn't ideal and someone on average wage loses £600 a year. And I think the problem lies with expecting tuition to be free because it used to be, completely ignoring the difference in numbers going to university. If we want top class universities then we need to pay for them which we are doing satisfactorily right now so I'm reticent to alter things.

Tuition fees were not introduced to remove government funding. They were brought in as a top up to existing government funding. The change has occurred with the trebling of fees under the Tories who simply want to turn public expenditure into private debt. What is wrong with the state funding a significant proportion of higher education? Surely education is one of the areas of society that the government should absolutely fund for the good of all. For me the problem is expecting that everybody is on their own in life and has to pay for their own choices. We are turning higher education into something akin to the american healthcare system. 

 

I didn't answer you questions because you seem to seriously believe that I have the access or the time to go through government spending figures to give you precise taxation starting points. The important thing here is the overarching idea about funding. The government of the day would do the calculations.

Edited 11 July 2017 by Guest

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Hard to feel sorry for other people my age tbf. You make your own choices, I chose to get into a career I know would support me. My mate decided ****ing about for 4 years studying media at uni was a better idea. He now works 16 hours a week at sainsbury and whatever he can get at the local corner shop. 

 

No surprise who's doing better. 

You sound like a wonderful friend to have.

[Captain...]

57 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What about the graduates who have already paid off their loan? What if you went to Uni and ended up stacking shelves like KingGTF's mate did?

 

If that system was bought in it wouldn't bother me (I'm not a graduate btw, in before anyone says they can tell). I just don't think the present system is that bad.

The whole system really is that bad, in fact it is worse:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/490384/Billions-lost-in-black-hole-of-student-loans

 

"The Government’s latest estimate – known as the “RAB charge” – is that about 45 per cent of loans under the new system will never be repaid. This is close to the 48.6 per cent threshold at which experts say the Government will begin to lose more cash than it gains from the fees rise."

 

Not only is the system giving people a massive debt and taking up 9% of their income, the government is close to losing money on the whole thing. You regularly say nobody changes their mind in these debates, maybe you could be the first.

 

With a student tax a proportion of the money should go back to the university the graduate went to, so it is in their interest to get people as prepared as possible for a real job and cut free the wasters who are just there to get pissed and not study and not achieve anything with their lives. Maybe even be a little more selective with the application process. If their funding was partly dependent on how well the students did after University they might not let in someone with shit grades just to make up numbers. (On a separate note there should be a more widely accepted alternative to University focussing on job skills rather than academia, but that is for another day.)

Edited 11 July 2017 by Captain...

[Guest Kopfkino]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tuition fees were not introduced to remove government funding. They were brought in as a top up to existing government funding. The change has occurred with the trebling of fees under the Tories who simply want to turn public expenditure into private debt. What is wrong with the state funding a significant proportion of higher education? Surely education is one of the areas of society that the government should absolutely fund for the good of all. For me the problem is expecting that everybody is on their own in life and has to pay for their own choices. We are turning higher education into something akin to the american healthcare system. 

 

I didn't answer you questions because you seem to seriously believe that I have the access or the time to go through government spending figures to give you precise taxation starting points. The important thing here is the overarching idea about funding. The government of the day would do the calculations.

 

I mean if it was up to me, the state would be removed from higher education and the student would have a direct contract with the university whereby they agree to pay a % of their future earnings to the university. So the university has equity in the premium the graduate will make, giving the university incentive to produce high earning graduates. A university has an economic interest in their students and compete to offer the best students to the marketplace.

 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

I mean if it was up to me, the state would be removed from higher education and the student would have a direct contract with the university whereby they agree to pay a % of their future earnings to the university. So the university has equity in the premium the graduate will make, giving the university incentive to produce high earning graduates. A university has an economic interest in their students and compete to offer the best students to the marketplace.

Comfortably the best idea I've heard ever since this debate started. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I mean if it was up to me, the state would be removed from higher education and the student would have a direct contract with the university whereby they agree to pay a % of their future earnings to the university. So the university has equity in the premium the graduate will make, giving the university incentive to produce high earning graduates. A university has an economic interest in their students and compete to offer the best students to the marketplace.

 

Jesus Christ. Honestly we might as well just do away with the state and just have dog v dog. Why not have personal health insurance like the US? All this line of thinking ever leads to is profit > people. 

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Comfortably the best idea I've heard ever since this debate started. 

Trouble is 'the market' never, ever produces the results it promises. The ideology exists as this perfect system which ignores greed, cartels and all the other things that corrupt. Every market in existence has been corrupted. Usually by the very same people proposing them as perfect systems.

[davieG]

DeMontfort Uni seems to have plenty of cash to splash on vanity projects, fancy buildings, taking over roads etc where does that all come from?

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Jesus Christ. Honestly we might as well just do away with the state and just have dog v dog. Why not have personal health insurance like the US? All this line of thinking ever leads to is profit > people. 

University is already dog eat dog, try and get into Oxford with two D grades and see what happens.

 

These are adults, the education system for adults is there to get the best from people, not to drag people down to a similar level to try and make them equal.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

University is already dog eat dog, try and get into Oxford with two D grades and see what happens.

 

These are adults, the education system for adults is there to get the best from people, not to drag people down to a similar level to try and make them equal.

It's there to give everybody the opportunity to be the best they can and have the best possible start in life. Tuition fees and huge loans add nothing to this.

[Webbo]

19 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The whole system really is that bad, in fact it is worse:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/490384/Billions-lost-in-black-hole-of-student-loans

 

"The Government’s latest estimate – known as the “RAB charge” – is that about 45 per cent of loans under the new system will never be repaid. This is close to the 48.6 per cent threshold at which experts say the Government will begin to lose more cash than it gains from the fees rise."

 

Not only is the system giving people a massive debt and taking up 9% of their income, the government is close to losing money on the whole thing. You regularly say nobody changes their mind in these debates, maybe you could be the first.

 

With a student tax a proportion of the money should go back to the university the graduate went to, so it is in their interest to get people as prepared as possible for a real job and cut free the wasters who are just there to get pissed and not study and not achieve anything with their lives. Maybe even be a little more selective with the application process. If their funding was partly dependent on how well the students did after University they might not let in someone with shit grades just to make up numbers. (On a separate note there should be a more widely accepted alternative to University focussing on job skills rather than academia, but that is for another day.)

All those arguments have been addressed already. It's only 9% on anything over 21k, a lot will pay less than their debt or nothing and the govt can divert a graduate tax away from the universities.

[Innovindil]

26 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You sound like a wonderful friend to have.

Hard to find honest friends these days.