[Closed] So, £168,000 to get my kids through college. What to do?

CharlieMungus - Member

Really? How long ago did you get chartered?

not chartered, i've never had an employer with an MPDS scheme that worked.

plenty have [i]claimed[/i] to have a scheme, but always 'starting next year' - and still asked my to pay for it.

my current employer doesn't even acknowledge the status of 'chartered engineer'...

ho-hum.

ahwiles - Member

not chartered, i've never had an employer with an MPDS scheme that worked.

plenty have claimed to have a scheme, but always 'starting next year' - and still asked my to pay for it.

You are a Window Visibility Maintenance Engineer? and I claim my £5

currently i'm 'measurement geek - joint second in command' - in a team of 3

🙂

To become a social worker you will need a university degree in social work. (not Sociology

If its a standard subject-degree and I was 17/18 faced with THAT much debt TBH I think I'd have a really good years travelling then start working my way up in a company instead.

I know people still paying off their student loans now in their late 30's. Yeah Degrees really are a magic bullit.

not chartered, i've never had an employer with an MPDS scheme that worked.

Ok, then not being funny and perhaps being overly pedantic, but you're not really an engineer then. In the way that most of those engineers earning over £30 are.

There's a whole other thread about the 'merits' of 'Chartered Engineer' status, but that really is going off-topic here.... 😉

^^^ Charlie - not chartered either, have no intention of it, for various reasons and doing very nicely without it.....

OP- You're confused about you're role as a parent, you do the best for your kids with the money you have, if you cant afford to pay there way through uni don't, they'll have to do it off there own back. If they don't want to go 'cos daddy ain't paying they probably don't deserve to be there anyway.

There's a whole other thread about the 'merits' of 'Chartered Engineer' status, but that really is going off-topic her

Yes, i agree on that, especially in terms of merit. But there is the recognition / accreditation aspect of that title. Many people call themselves engineers, but may only be fitters. There needs to be some way to differentiate.

that is the issue though the rich will be able to afford it that is the rich not the best or most able but the rich so that their kids can also be rich. Surely it should be an equal opportunity to education rather than based on ability to pay?
Without parental support most students would not be able to do [ or an apprenticeship] it as the costs are too high. Seriously we will give people on benefits money [rightly] and yet we wont support students who will better themsleves and [ in the broadest sense] better society. Need to take a long hard look at themselves do the degree educated people making this decison...guess they know their kids will be ok as daddy is rich.

Making a number of assumptions about future earnings (payrises in line with inflation - ha ha) I'll pay off my student loan when I'm 63. I can't say it bothers me or keeps me awake at night.

Still don't agree with the proposals though

the new scheme will REDUCE loan repayments for more or less everybody.

Uni just got CHEAPER for more or less everybody.

(only the very few who go on to earn £50k, £500K, whatever, will pay any more)

if you're a parent, don't worry. your kids will be fine. they'll enjoy themselves, they'll learn something, they'll make some new friends.

the time to worry is when they want to buy a house, which they can't afford, cos your generation have bought them all as 'investments' - which you'll need to cash in to raise the cash for your kids to buy a house...

house prices - now there's something to get angry about.

tuition fees? - nah.

bloody hell! - £30k typical - my hairy ar53. who do i have to kill to get that much?

With an MEng 2.1 (or better)

BG (i.e opperators) are recruiting this year at £35k, but expect 60+hour weeks and overtime isnt paid.

We (contractors) are recruiting arround £27-28k, working a more normal ~40hours with paid ovetime

Consulting you'd be looking at arround £45k, but living from a suitcase in hotels.

OK so the oil/gas/petchem industry isnt entirely reprisenttative, but the moneys there.

Many people call themselves engineers, but may only be fitters. There needs to be some way to differentiate.

100% agree - that is one of the many reasons I refuse to give any cash to the limp-wristed, toothless bunch of wind bags that is the IMechE. They should be leading/lobbying on this and yet they choose to be the most invisible bunch of toss-pots on this or any other subject, relevant or otherwise. The fact that I would have to give them money to maintain membership in order to maintain Chartered status devalues it to zero worth - it woudl appear that this measure of professional competance is based on your ability to keep paying fees, which isn't right.

Said I wouldn't rant didn't I.... 😉

EDIT:

and i know some completely clueless 'chartered' engineer

Yes, and that as well.... 😉

+1

and i know some completely clueless 'chartered' engineers.

100% agree - that is one of the many reasons I refuse to give any cash to the limp-wristed, toothless bunch of wind bags that is the IMechE.

None of our engineers are chartered, as we do software, which (despite our company doing something that was/is widely considered to be impossible) the icheme doesn't really look upon as something to charter for. It's the most expensive magazine subs i've ever had...

it woudl appear that this measure of professional competance is based on your ability to keep paying fees, which isn't right.

+1

I did an engineering degree (Materials) but went into sales. Then wanted to do a "proper" job so did engineering. But it was such a hugely slow career/salary ladder that I decided to jack it in. Ambition is not rewarded. Results aren't rewarded. You just "do your time" and gradually get okay pay 10-15 years later. Sod that.
18 months after graduating I was on over £45k (then gave it up and went travelling) - compared to the snail like pace of engineering pay scales, it just made more sense.

If engineering rewarded ambition better, a lot more people would be attracted to it.

I remember being interviewed and British Steel (now Corus) for a Commercial Division job - basically Sales Engineer type stuff. I was a cocky git and kept asking about bonuses - "If I beat my targets, what do I get paid?" Basically almost nowt over doing the job badly. I was offered the job but went elsewhere.

Ambition is not rewarded. Results aren't rewarded. You just "do your time" and gradually get okay pay 10-15 years later. Sod that.

Varys dramatically within companies. There are still a lot of old school engineering companies out there where this is true, but there are equally as many progressive companies where progression can be very rapid. I see friends at opposite ends of the spectrum within Engineering due to the nature of the company ( and a good shot of personal ambition and motivation too)

no wonder british steel went to the walls without your talents you let the country down mat 😳

If engineering rewarded ambition better, a lot more people would be attracted to it

If you want big bucks on the technical side, you'll either have to, do something very niche very well, invent something new and do it yourself or play the game and move from job to job increasing pay as you go (I know people who are doing this, but it will only go so far).

I tend to agree that ambition, in a technical sense, is not high up there on the skills set of a typical practicing engineer, beyond getting the job done correctly, on time and on budget (and making sure as many people as possible know it was you and your team that did it! ;-). I think there is trend now to identify those with 'ambition' and move them into management roles where there dynamism will be rewarded (or not as the case may be) and not force those that are able and technically very good into roles that they may not want to go into or be suited to - essentially two career paths, rather than just doing time and progressing as people leave/die!

Surely 'engineering' is a pretty wide category?

There's no 'engineering' industry sector, is there? So why would you think you could generalise all engineering jobs?

There's no 'engineering' industry sector, is there? So why would you think you could generalise all engineering jobs?

Mol - in what context do you make that statement? (or, in other words, 'what's your point caller...' 😉

Glad I got out of Engineering really. Really enjoyed it but if felt like a dead end, especially Oop North.

Uni just got CHEAPER for more or less everybody.

(only the very few who go on to earn £50k, £500K, whatever, will pay any more)

the time to worry is when they want to buy a house, which they can't afford, cos your generation have bought them all as 'investments'

It will be interesting to see how banks and building societies treat student loan debt in the future when interest rates above inflation are being charged.

Well Mat said engineering is this and that.. surely an engineer belongs to an industry sector, and the industry sector would dictate the general career progression and so on.

For instance, engineer in a small startup bring new products to market - dynamic, interesting and potentially rewarding, suitable for the ambitious. Engineer in.. I dunno, railways, or something government run - slow progression for those that want a steady job.

For instance, engineer in a small startup bring new products to market - dynamic, interesting and potentially rewarding, suitable for the ambitious. Engineer in.. I dunno, railways, or something government run - slow progression for those that want a steady job.

That was one of my scenarios in my post above - if you have a good idea, a bit more than just technical competancy and some "ambition" (call it what you will), then you find a way to make money (if that is what you class as being rewarded).

As LHS says, I don't think it is sector-by-sector in terms of progression, it'll be company-by-company - moving around a lot, or simply to a 'better' company, can have a huge effect on your career in a rapid space of time - particularly if you have the skills set to be of value to a range of 'sectors', which a lot of graduates do have as degree courses tend to be common/general for a year to two before specialising.

Gone way off-topic now..... 😉

Not as off-topic as the Southern driving one.

Not as off-topic as the Southern driving one.

LOL - is that still going?? Think I'll steer clear - let me guess - the forum bruisers have waded in now and it's all gone a bit silly.... 😆

Yes, and even TJ congratulated me on the scale of mudslinging contest I'd started.

praise indeed

If Uni's shut down these mickey mouse courses (met someone the other day studying a 'Golf Management Degree' - couldn't stop laughing for 10 minutes), then they can use the budget for more traditional courses.

This means, fewer places at Uni.... which means people will have to work harder if they want to go to Uni. No more getting on a degree course with only 2 A-Level's at grade E.

Gov't should encourage local colleges to run industry qualifications as short courses (in IT we have Microsoft, Cisco, etc).

golf is a massive industry - with requirements that are no doubt unique.

makes as much sense to me as many others...

If Uni's shut down these mickey mouse courses (met someone the other day studying a 'Golf Management Degree' - couldn't stop laughing for 10 minutes), then they can use the budget for more traditional courses

If that would work, why would they not already be doing that? There has to be some advantage in offering these courses.

@ molgrips

If the course is offered, then it will eat up some of the budget the Gov't has allocated to that Uni.

Less courses at Uni = cheaper to run the Uni = lower tution fees (and Gov't spending) is required.

Plus, those who graduate with a degree actually stand out against the person next to them who doesn't...

Examples of suitable degree courses would be: medical ones (docs, dentists, vets), sciences (including engineering), language, etc. What some might call the more 'traditional' degrees.

Less courses at uni = fewer students = [b]less[/b] money coming in!

I don't know mucn about engineering -yes I did a degree in it and worked in it for a while (2 years) but still limited and possibly dated knowledge.

Just my thoughts that's all - for someone wanting to do well in a career, having to work on cr4p money for 10+ years with no direct rewards can put some off - not just me but others that did my degree too.

I mourn the passing of our manufacturing industry too. My only attempt ti "help" is buying Hope/Luminous/a sort of British car!

Depends on the ratio of student fees to gov't funding.

A course will cost X to run (salaries, resources), and the students tuition fees might cost Y, which is only 1/3 of X. The Gov't makes up the extra 2/3...

Without any actual figures, it's all just a theoretical idea...

try working in science!
starting slaries are easily below the 21k threshold

Well it just got more expensive for the rich, since they're going to have to pay a premium to pay upfront, rather than get a loan!

There are two different loans. The loan for fees isn't, IIRC, means tested. Only the maintenance loan is means tested.

If Uni's shut down these mickey mouse courses (met someone the other day studying a 'Golf Management Degree' - couldn't stop laughing for 10 minutes), then they can use the budget for more traditional courses.

A course will cost X to run (salaries, resources), and the students tuition fees might cost Y, which is only 1/3 of X. The Gov't makes up the extra 2/3...

You should be in favour of this change then - the whole point of it is that a course will cost X to run, and they're removing the government subsidy for students, and allowing universities to charge X to do the course. Thus only profitable courses run.

Although the downside of this is, some courses (eg biology, chemistry), that cost a lot to run, might not be profitable, whilst other ones that people like you love to hate (golf course management, sociology or whatever is the latest bugbear), are pretty cheap to run, so might well be profitable for universities to run.

Joe

I'm finding this one of the most interesting threads for ages, particularly all the engineering related comments.

The IET and The Engineer magazine have been bleating on about some sort of protection for the term "engineer" but I don't necessarily think it should be reserved for someone holding a particular degree from a particular university.

It should be reserved for a person who can actually engineer something, be that electonic, mechanical, software or whatever.

Unless valve radios make a comeback, that rules out half the IET members 🙂

Yes it does seem a bit of an old boys network doesn't it! Mind you, not many youngsters coming in to fill the gaps is there?

anyway, midlifecrashes, are you a bit less worried?

tell you what, when your kids graduate, i will gladly swap their debt+repayments for mine...

(10% of everything over £21000) < (10% of everything over £15000)

[i]Without parental support most students would not be able to do [ or an apprenticeship] it as the costs are too high. Seriously we will give people on benefits money [rightly] and yet we wont support students who will better themsleves and [ in the broadest sense] better society. Need to take a long hard look at themselves do the degree educated people making this decison...guess they know their kids will be ok as daddy is rich. [/i]

I'm old enough to have been around when going into an apprenticeship was quite the norm. You lived at 'home' and gave your mum your wages - she then gave you your pocket money - only once on proper money did you get married and move out. Thats how it was.

Am I worried? Not for my family, we're rich enough and will cope. I've never been convinced that 50% of 18 year olds need to go on to do a degree, and I'm sure there will be unintended consequences of the way it's implemented. The idea of studying abroad is intriguing now it'll be cheaper than going local. The idea of paying an average of £240ish a month from say a teacher's salary, starting at £21.5k reaching career up to £36k as a senior teacher is bound to be offputting, especially to engineers. Also would £40k-ish loan be better spent long term establishing a business, doing a degree, just buying a cheap house outright then needing a lower paid job and lifestyle?

what do you mean, 'we're rich enough to cope?' ... ?

the new repayment scheme will cost your kids LESS than the current one.

current scheme: 10% of everything over £15k - someone earning £25k will pay £1000 per year.

new scheme: 10% of everything over £21k - someone earning £25k will pay £400 per year.

new scheme for me please!

How's that going to work then?

Given that new debt levels will be cira £35-40K and students loans will no longer be at a subsidised apr but a market rate, £400pa would not even get close to paying the interest on the loan, let alone paying off the actual debt.

Well, under the old scheme the threshold for starting payments is £15k, but most will have paid £3300 x 3 in tuition fees. Under the new scheme, most will pay £9000 x 3 in tuition fees. No matter what the threshold for repayment, that's worse off. By my calcs, a total debt of £42k would take around 37 years paying 9%, or to put it another way, after 30 years of paying £158 per month rising to £258 per month, there would still be a debt of £19k to write off. Assumes starting salary of £21k rising equal steps of £500pa. (I haven't seen the detail of how the interest is calculated, and have worked on 5%.) Now if other financial institutions treat this as real debt, it's not going to be funny trying to get a mortgage/car loan/save a bit for your own kids, is it?

What do I mean by rich enough to cope? We've been saving since they were born and live in a cheap town. Last brand new bike in 1997. Good household income but a fair chunk goes away monthly for kids and rainy day. I'd like them to come out of college debt free if we can manage that.

sorry midlife - i wasn't prying into your family finances, just trying to suggest that most people will find the new system cheaper.

student loans aren't treated as 'real' debt - when i applied for a mortgage the bank considered my monthly student loan repayments, but not the total debt.

the scheme will hit those who go on to earn 40 / 50 k or more or more. at around £40k someone will quickly start to make a dent in their debt under the current scheme. and pay off around £12000 in about 12 years or so.

(i've got a spreadsheet here i've been playing with - i've even trying to factor in how useless the loans Co is at keeping tabs on your current salary)

under the new scheme, a graduate will owe around £30k, if they go on to earn 40 / 50k, like above, they'll be making smaller monthly payments, but for much longer - about 20 years.

someone like a nurse or a teacher, will maybe never pay off their debt under the [i]current[/i] system, the new system will mean low-ish earners will be better off.

No worries awhiles, and wouldn't have cared if you did pry, since without real world examples how do you judge a policy? I'm lucky enough to look at the figures and think "that's gonna cost us, big style", but to look at it as a 16 year old from a household earning average wages around here and looking forward to being a not very exceptional Engineering salary like I did, I'm sure my choices would have been influenced. As with everything, we need the detail of how grants and bursaries will work to see if enough is done to offset the effects of the hike.

[Edit: wrong figure from my spreadsheet above, theoretically 35yrs to repay, or £14.5k to write off at year 30]

student loans aren't treated as 'real' debt - when i applied for a mortgage the bank considered my monthly student loan repayments, but not the total debt.

It's mostly already been said on the engineering discussion, but I'm just wondering why I'd only be on £16k if I'd not gone to uni, when I could have worked my way up to something better given sufficient intelligence to get through an engineering degree - the comparison is spurious. Also so much for increasing salary with experience - I'm earning less in real terms than I was 5 years ago, with no prospect of my salary outstripping inflation any time in the near future - in the longer term I'm not totally convinced I'll make it back to where I was by the time I retire 😥 Even going into management, the sort of increases I'd see wouldn't be worth the added aggravation and the fact I'd then be a manager (which I could have done without going through the engineering degree and training) rather than doing the technical stuff which is the reason I decided to be an engineer in the first place. Of course I could move jobs, but I put up with it because I like where I live and having a short commute - I still wonder how my company retains staff at its other sites in parts of the country with a worse standard of living.

Is this new system not a graduate tax by another name ? You can only bay the 10% of salary over a certain amount so unless you earn really big bucks you will never pay it off so you will be paying 10% extra on earnings over 21K for 30 years. Sounds like a tax to me.

I am a software engineer (yes I am charted too for what that is worth) I specialise mostly in embedded software. I take it most of the engineers who are saying they don't earn more than 30K are mechanical engineers ? Most if not all of the Software and electronic engineers I know ear a fair bit in excess of that. I know I live in the south where the roads are paved with gold.

Bazzer

I agree that the fees going up almost 3 times is terrible, I would have been gutted if that had happened when I went to university but what I'm struggling to see is how its harder for the parents to send their kids?

My parents had to save up the fees for both myself and my twin brother before we went and then pay them up front each term. Now the kids pay after, so less to save right?

It's a tax on gruaduates, it's pretty obvious. But i think if you treat it that way instead of a massive debt that you'll never clear it's a bit easier to deal with. It doesn't affect your credit rating etc

I managed through uni without parental help, thankfully the year before fees, but after grants abolished so came away with about 9k debt, the missus the year after with fees owes 12k odd. If I'd been faced with leaving uni £30k in debt I wouldn't have gone.

Luckily I did a proper degree and managed to get a reasonably well paid job after 12 months of persistance (different industry though). So my debt is paid, the missus however looks like it will never be paid off, she's just paying the interest at the moment - at some point she will take a career break for children too,

Personally I think core (or whatever subject this country *needs* graduates in) courses should attract scholarships for the best applicants to help the less welloff attend. If you are rich and thick then you pay full whack, poor and brainy course is free(ish).

Of course that would mean they have to stop handing out A*'s to everybody.... I've heard some uni's do basic maths/english tests now as they've found some students are below par. Pains me to say but if basic english/maths is bad they shouldn't be studying a degree, whatever subject.

To the OP - I'd start saving now!

Is this new system not a graduate tax by another name ? You can only bay the 10% of salary over a certain amount so unless you earn really big bucks you will never pay it off so you will be paying 10% extra on earnings over 21K for 30 years. Sounds like a tax to me.

Yes, it is.

Most graduates will never pay off their loans. The government will have to pay eventually.

It's essentially another PFI initiative. Taxpayers will foot the bill eventually, and will end up paying more.

Also is it 10% before tax that gets paid to the loan company ?

What I mean is do you get tax relief on the repayments.

so earn 30K pay £900 to loan company get taxed on £29100.

Bazzer

@ Bazzer - yes, I thought the student loan came out of your wages pre-tax?

Check your next payslip, and it should say?

Possibly on a slightly more constructive / positive note there maybe bursaries available:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/ilph-launches-bursary-scheme-for-vet-students/13006.article
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=6314

I find the debts students and/or their parents are having to deal with these days staggering. I went to Uni 20 years ago, and back then it was a fairly big deal if you had an overdraft of £400. Student loans came in during my final year and if i recall was something like £500 a year. Fees were nothing like they are today. I'd set up a Child Trust Fund, then at 18 say say here you are, make your own decision.

I may be wrong, but at the time there were aspects of the grant system which needed to be looked at - namely children of divorced parents got a full grant regardless as to their parents financial circumstances, as did mature students over the age of 21.

Regarding degree choice, you went to uni (as well as to drink for 3 years) to demonstrate your intelligence to future employers - hence graduate level better paid jobs. Degrees were largely accademic core subjects and were not chosen unlike today with a future employment path in mind, which i think is far too early. The other aspect of going to Uni was to get "life experience", but these days with travel around the world being easier i'd consider encouraging my kids to travel - and by that i don't mean sitting in a bar in Sydney for 6 months.

I graduated during the last recession and it was pretty impossible to find any job, let alone a graduate job as `we' had been led to believe. Today the job market is different, but with employers having more graduates to choose from i'd not want to be in the position of £30k plus debt around my neck. Having said that, with careful financial management, a large chunck of this can be paid off over ten years with careful financial planning - but who has that in their 20's? 😀

Check your next payslip, and it should say?

Mine was paid off 10 years ago, but no where near as large as some of the debts younger people will have to pay off.

I was lucky enough not to have to pay fees and still had a small maintenance grant topped up by a student loan.

I'd set up a Child Trust Fund, then at 18 say say here you are, make your own decision.

I wouldn't. They're generally charged at a higher management rate than an identical product and they become the legal property of the child at 18. What if you're kid's a drug addict at 18?

Fair point - but in general terms what i mean is give a long term saved lump sum and within reason let them get on with it. Having said that, even a smallish sum from a Trust Fund at least allows them to have total control and learn to sink or swim.

Scamper - even today students are assessed based on the finances of the resident parent where parents are divorced.

If they're talking about help for the poorest they really need to find a better way to test this. Especially a conservative government who are supposed to support the family.

Also the incentive to play the system is going to be far greater if fees go up. I know people whose parents stated they were separated (they owned two houses) so they got more help.

the new repayment scheme will cost your kids LESS than the current one.
current scheme: 10% of everything over £15k - someone earning £25k will pay £1000 per year.
new scheme: 10% of everything over £21k - someone earning £25k will pay £400 per year.

You seem to suggest that paying less for longer is somehow cheaper I think it is more expensive as you pay more back in the long run. Cheaper per year but for longer - Would increasing my mortgage by 5 years save me money?

Would increasing my mortgage by 5 years save me money?

What if you never expected to pay off your mortgage, and the amount left to repay would be written off after 30 years?

Would you want to pay off the whole mortgage off really quickly for large monthly payments, or would you mortgage youself up to the hilt and pay the smallest possible amount each month until it was written off?

What if you never expected to pay off your mortgage, and the amount left to repay would be written off after 30 years?

I am guessing the government have done the sums and this ends up with them netting more cash in the long run !!!

Under the new system you won't necessarily be paying less for longer. At certain levels you'll never pay off the debt under either system. Under the old system (1998-200?) you can potentially be paying for 43 years, the new one is written off after 30. Not to mention the fact that you could be earning 20k so paying off under one system but not the other.

i never expect to clear my student loan debt of £12000-ish, my repayments aren't keeping up with the interest/inflation.

i'd rather be paying 10% of everything i earn over £21,000 for the rest of my life, than the same of £15,000

i'd have more money (long term and short term) under the new scheme.

people who go on to earn 40-50k or more earn enough over the threshold to make good headway into the debt. these people soon clear it under the present system. These people will be paying a tiny bit less, but for much much longer under the new system.

the extra money to make up for the cuts in uni funding will come from higher earners.

I am guessing the government have done the sums and this ends up with them netting more cash in the long run !!!

You would hope so, but...

the extra money to make up for the cuts in uni funding will come from higher earners.

The more I read about this the more I realise its a tax by the back door.

The main reason I would dissuade any of my children from doing Engineering at Uni was that I suffered a 40 hour LECTURE week for 3 years, whilst everyone I knew was doing 16 tops. Outside study on top plus coursework, projects etc. You'd struggle to do that and hold down a part time job as looks to be necessary now.

When you leave and realise sales earn more than you with no degree and a fairly scant idea of what they are selling, you realise you've been wasting your time.

For me the distinction between engineer or not was not chartered status (which seems to have a degree of baggage) but whether you did a Beng or Meng rather than a Bsci .. maybe naively I assumed all other unis put the same demands on their Beng students.

Of course I could move jobs, but I put up with it because I like where I live and having a short commute

100% agree. I could earn 10K more by commuting to that London everyday, and it's entirely feasible to do so.. but my quality of life is more important.

On the Engineer debate.... At work I design something in Inventor, export the solid models to cad/cam software,then create the toolpaths and then the code which is then sent to the cnc machines. I then go and set the machines machine the componet then fit all the parts together.
As I only have a city and guilds qualification does this make me not a engineer?

If anyone is thinking of doing chemistry then I'd look into a sponsored degree. Two of my previous employers have offered them.

Here we pay about 15k rising to 20k over 6 years and you do your degree one day a week. Most come out with firsts (as they have developed a work ethic/professional attiture over 6 years in a proper job) they also have a job and no debts. Not sure if it will continue if the company has to up it's payments.

try working in science!
starting slaries are easily below the 21k threshold

Really? With degree or PhD though?

I am guessing the government have done the sums and this ends up with them netting more cash in the long run !!!

More likey as with most governments, they won't be around to worry about/pay for it in 30 years...

Anyone hear the Jeremy Vine interview with the Lib Dem MP this afternoon? Quite amusing listening to him stammer his way through his pathetic explanation about election pledges....

bazzer - Member

The more I read about this the more I realise its a tax by the back door

correct!

but if the government were honest, and said so, then it would set a very dangerous precedent; paying income taxes based on which services you use.

i went to university - should i pay a graduate tax?

i don't smoke - should i get a reduction for not trying to kill myself at great expense to the nhs?

should criminals pay extra income tax to cover the costs of their incarceration?

i don't have kids, why should i pay for schools?

etc.

it's all a bit daft, and would get terribly complicated.

for the record, i don't mind paying taxes, it's an important thing to do if you want to live in a society that isn't based on stone-age tribal war, and trading sea shells for goats.

should criminals pay extra income tax to cover the costs of their incarceration?

i don't have kids, why should i pay for schools?