Big companies – student university fees

Large corporations/organisations have a tendency to “hoover up” all of the top graduates. As very significant beneficiaries of so many highly educated talented people, why shouldn’t they directly foot more of the bill?

The coalition have this notion that many middle earners have got it easy and should therefore foot a disproportionate percentage of the tax burden. Some might have it a bit easy, but very many don’t. They are busy working to pay for successive governments’ insatiable appetite for public spending!

In the last week we heard how “progressive” the coalition are. e.g a family with one parent earning £44k or more will loose a £1000 per annum for one child, £1700 for two etc, whilst a working couple on salaries up to £44k can have a household income right up to £87998 before they have to forego their child allowance! Progressive? Yeah right!!

When are we going to have a fair system? (one without thresholds). What’s your big idea on this?

This sort of thing gives the socialists the ammunition they so crave to discredit the politics of the right wing. Of course, when Labour are in power, it works the other way round.

Why do we have such a polarised system of politics? Does democracy actually work, or is this socially divisive system just about higher taxes and greater public debt?

Isn’t one of the big problems that even though the parties may have wonderful ideas about how to tax people and redistribute the wealth to make things fair within society the biggest constraint is the actual systems they have at hand to fulfil these ideas and that to build a bespoke collection and distribution system fit for purpose is too expensive in these days of austerity?

Yes! It takes millions of pounds and a long time to implement changes. Many of these schemes fail miserably, such as the one intended to recover ill gotten gains from criminals. This cost the tax payer hugely more money than it recovered!

Keep it simple is my motto!

Middle earners are not earning £44000 pa. They are the top few %

so your premise fails right there – especially when we remain a low tax low spending country.

not got any opinion on your big companies idea.

however… the reason for the ideosyncracy of not considering combined incomes is it would have required a full means testing of child benefits which would cost nearly as much as it would have saved. the system proposed has been ‘hacked in’ to the tax system so that it will actually save some money, unfortunatly this leaves the disparity between multiple earner and single earner households. George osborne was very open about this and i am with him that it has been done to provide the maximum saving and miniumum expenditure that the country needs

Big companies in the professional fields such as accountancy, engineering etc often lose money in the first couple of years on those graduates as they train them up. Small companies often can’t afford to do this and many of those graduates leave once they are chartered to join small companies. I think large firms contribute in this way.

I’m not commenting on the other points on this forum! 😯

I have seen it within my company, one of the main contraints is not the ideas it is how to implement that idea without spending too much money doing it within the existing infrastructure.

Senior managers at the moment seem to have even shorter tenures than MPs and governments and are not willing to spend money in the short term that will only be recovered through revenue and efficiency gains in the medium to long term.

It’s all a bit sad really.

I think what you pay back should be related to how well you perform at University.

Get a
1st 80% discount on fees.
2:1 60%
2:2 40%
3rd 20%

Fail 0%

Might make people think about if university is right for them in the first place and when they are there an incentive to make the most of it.

Bazzer

Large corporations are the ones that tend to have proper graduate schemes, most SME won’t. Large corporations also invest a lot of money in getting those graduates trained in business etc., you try and stick an additional tax burden on them as well and all you’ll do is reduce the chances of graduates getting a decent job and therefore delaying the loan repayment further (assuming they would still carry some of the repayment burden in your system…).

Not that I’m a fan of graduate schemes anyway but I guess they work for some (my place is just about to introduce one – personally I think we’d be better off getting people already trained and experienced that are just as intelligent – there’s plenty about at the moment).

When are we going to have a fair system?

Define fair!

FWIW, why not just add two pence onto the income tax of all who have received a university education – nice and easy, pay it back proportionately and over a lifetime!

+1 Bazzer!!

Define Fair!

Everyone bearing a proportionate amount of the tax burden – a percentage?

Surely, for example, hiking tax by 1% would be simpler and would raise a lot more money for the exchequer than messing about with child benefit.

This would accord better with this “were all in this together” spin we keep hearing!

were all in this together

Every time I hear that I think of Terry Gilliam’s movie Brazil and its shambolic dystopian bureaucracy.

it does seem rather odd that the coalition trust a new labour darling to come do this review- the ex BP chairman who tried to convince us BP were beyond petroleum and then instigated the cuts that helped raise profits and lower safety standards at bp (see deepwater horizon, texas oil refinery)

as such this man was never going to put the burden of higher education onto companies
not that such a system would work

his basic premise seems to be create a 2 tier higher education system and saddle the poorer students with a lifetime of personal debt
exactly what the torys and the lib dems told us was bad about the last government

slashing investment in science and education for a short term gain in the blance sheet at the cost of long term development is going to destroy any chances of making britain great again

*
also of note higher earners are infact those on £42grand not 44 as george o lied us to believe in his speach, when they introduced their last clusterf**k of a policy

Middle earners are not earning £44000 pa. They are the top few %

How many is a few?

Its 10% of all full time PAYE payers earn enough to get into the higher tax braket. . so around 5% or less of all workforce. (including part time and unemployed as well as self employed)

Define Fair!
Everyone bearing a proportionate amount of the tax burden – a percentage?

Surely, for example, hiking tax by 1% would be simpler and would raise a lot more money for the exchequer than messing about with child benefit.

This would accord better with this “were all in this together” spin we keep hearing!

so, you think its fair for a single mum, earning 8k per year, working part time in a cafe, to contribute to the cost of a university education in applied drama for the son of a doctor and a headteacher, with a combined income of 150k?

or its fair for the state minimum pension to be set lower than it could be, so that people who have retired with a company pension of £30k per year can get a free TV license and bus pass?

equally, you think its fair for either of these people to be taxed so that a teenage layabout can sit at home watching daytime TV on benefits rather than go out and get a job (any job, there’s always vacancies at mcdonalds!)

Its 10% of all full time PAYE payers earn enough to get into the higher tax braket. . so around 5% or less of all workforce. (including part time and unemployed as well as self employed)

Is that your opinion or do you have a reference?

Zulu-Eleven – I don’t see the point in those arguments really. I mean a single Mum earning £8k gets a lot of benefits right? More than she pays in tax? So she ain’t really contributing to anybody else now is she?

Why should life be fair ?

FWIW, why not just add two pence onto the income tax of all who have received a university education – nice and easy, pay it back proportionately and over a lifetime!

Because that sort of thing would result in some graduates paying back way more than the cost of the education. It’s worth noting that whenever this debate comes up it always focuses on how much an individual graduate earns and uses that as an excuse for charging more. What never seems to be taken into account is that this extra money will be taxed so the “average” graduate already pays more tax than the average non graduate. It also never seems to take into account the additional benefit that a graduate provides the country. Think of all the science and engineering that goes on and how that contributes to the wealth of the country, not to mention the health service. None of that would be possible without graduates.

The proposals of how when the money should be paid also makes no sense. There was a breakdown of graduate earnings a couple of months ago and from what I can recall the biggest earners were Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers. To further penalise people who are already contributing to the country far more than they ever took out, is just daft.

Sorry but this is one topic that really annoys me. A Higher education should be a right for those who earn it, not a privalage for those who can afford it.

well, this page agrees with the 10% figure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm

but seems to suggest that the figure is Higher if you take the non-paye people into account, as most self employed/directors/etc earn more than this

In addition, a reasonable number of people have an income supplimented by non-PAYE income – for instance BTL, renting a room out, investments from a inheritance, etc

from what I can see, this is similar to the graduate tax, just worked out a different way. The trouble with a grad tax is it encourages those who graduate to leave the country

well, this page agrees with the 10% figure

That’s my opinion too it’s just that TJ has tried to make it sound like at most it’s 5%.

I mean a single Mum earning £8k gets a lot of benefits right? More than she pays in tax? So she ain’t really contributing to anybody else now is she?

Well, for a start we could afford to support her more if the money wasn’t being pissed up the wall on Tarquin’s drama course. same goes for the pensioner getting under £100 per week.

Because that sort of thing would result in some graduates paying back way more than the cost of the education. It’s worth noting that whenever this debate comes up it always focuses on how much an individual graduate earns and uses that as an excuse for charging more. What never seems to be taken into account is that this extra money will be taxed so the “average” graduate already pays more tax than the average non graduate.

Well, thats the whole basis of progressive taxation isn’t it! everyone on a higher wage pays back more than someone on a lower wage, even though they use the same services (or sometimes less) street lighting, NHS, libraries, schools etc. The expansion if your own argument is that non parents should not pay towards schools as they do not receive any personal benefit.

Thats why I asked for a definition of “fair”!

why should someone who crawls their way to the top of the pile and becomes a successful businessman without the benefit of a university education be paying the same amount of tax as someone earning the same who did go to university?

Sorry but this is one topic that really annoys me. A Higher education should be a right for those who earn it, not a privalage for those who can afford it.

Totally agree and charging people who do badly at it seems fair to me.

I don’t have to pay more for a Taxi because I earn more than my mate do I ?

Why should life be fair ?

Because we only get one and the clock is ticking.

why should someone who crawls their way to the top of the pile and becomes a successful businessman without the benefit of a university education be paying the same amount of tax as someone earning the same who did go to university?

For the others how can we be sure that having a degree was a major factor in their success?

The vast majority of my staff (who’re quite well paid!) have degrees but very few actually have a degree that’s related to what they’ve done for most of their career.

Well, for a start we could afford to support her more if the money wasn’t being pissed up the wall on Tarquin’s drama course. same goes for the pensioner getting under £100 per week.

But that’s not the same thing at all! You want the richer to pay more than they do now which may or may not be appropriate depending on what you think different people should pay towards the running of the country. The idea of what is fair taxation is opinion, that is all.

Because we only get one and the clock is ticking.

Loads of other stuff in life is not fair, but we seem to think finances and Tax should be.

it does seem rather odd that the coalition trust a new labour darling to come do this review- the ex BP chairman who tried to convince us BP were beyond petroleum and then instigated the cuts that helped raise profits and lower safety standards at bp (see deepwater horizon, texas oil refinery)

They didn’t it was a hangover from the last government, he was appointed in November 2009 – see here.

Because that sort of thing would result in some graduates paying back way more than the cost of the education. It’s worth noting that whenever this debate comes up it always focuses on how much an individual graduate earns and uses that as an excuse for charging more. What never seems to be taken into account is that this extra money will be taxed so the “average” graduate already pays more tax than the average non graduate. It also never seems to take into account the additional benefit that a graduate provides the country. Think of all the science and engineering that goes on and how that contributes to the wealth of the country, not to mention the health service. None of that would be possible without graduates.

Isn’t the proposal that science, medicine and engineering degrees still carry on being funded, its the history of art and Klingon language courses where the students will be expected to pay back the full amount. On that level it does seem to be actually more reasonable than the headline suggests.

Args Zargh Klingon geryssh phinthl flszh shkgll

(I find my Klingon degree very useful in my working life thank you very much)

You want the richer to pay more than they do now which may or may not be appropriate depending on what you think different people should pay towards the running of the country.

Well, actually I think you’ll find the opposite, I think people should be paying much less, as I believe that the responsibility, role and intervention of the state should be reigned in massively, but thats bye the bye.

The idea of what is fair taxation is opinion, that is all.

couldn’t agree more – thats why I asked for a definition of “fair”.

why should someone who crawls their way to the top of the pile and becomes a successful businessman without the benefit of a university education be paying the same amount of tax as someone earning the same who did go to university?

…For the others how can we be sure that having a degree was a major factor in their success?

we cant be sure, but that makes the inequity even worse, since the bloke who didn’t use thousands of pounds worth of taxpayer money to become successful is still paying the same percentage taxation as the one who’s pissed three years up the wall at his expense.

Graduate tax seems fairest to me as shouldn’t put people off. I don’t suppose we’d want to return to the days when only the cleverest people went do we?! At least the country could afford to pay for higher education then….

Graduate tax seems fairest to me as shouldn’t put people off. I don’t suppose we’d want to return to the days when only the cleverest people went do we?! At least the country could afford to pay for higher education then….

It has been fairly robustly dismissed in the report as “unworkable”, “expensive upfront” and “counter-productive”.

Well, thats the whole basis of progressive taxation isn’t it! everyone on a higher wage pays back more than someone on a lower wage, even though they use the same services (or sometimes less) street lighting, NHS, libraries, schools etc. The expansion if your own argument is that non parents should not pay towards schools as they do not receive any personal benefit.

I’ve no problem with progressive taxation as it currently stands i.e. higher wages means a higher rate of tax. What I do have a problem with is an additional level of taxation over and above that for those that have a degree. The expansion of the argument would be those that have had medical treatment from the NHS should be made to pay a higher rate of tax which I think we’d all find unacceptable.

Isn’t the proposal that science, medicine and engineering degrees still carry on being funded, its the history of art and Klingon language courses where the students will be expected to pay back the full amount. On that level it does seem to be actually more reasonable than the headline suggests.

That may be the case as I’ve not had a chance to read all the details.

I stongly disagree with the idea of a graduate tax. We already have a progressive tax system where by people who earn more pay a higher proportion of tax. To add more on top of this seems very “unfair”. If any cost is attributed to the student then it should be a finite amount so that it can be paid back and the debt cleared. Otherwise it is a disincentive to achieve success.

My solution would be to massively cut the number of universities and courses available so that they are only available to the top percentages and then this should allow more money available to assist those who are clever enough but not wealthy enough.

Personally I envy the students I work with who are doing company sponsored degrees. It takes longer and is much harder work but they are not saddle with £’0000s of debt and get valuable experience that will probably see them better off than people going down the standard route.

tiger_roach – Member

well, this page agrees with the 10% figure

That’s my opinion too it’s just that TJ has tried to make it sound like at most it’s 5%.

Because when you add in the part time workers and the workless people of wotking age it is around 5% – as I put in my post.

We are talking around half a million people

Even at 10 % it is by no stretch of the imagination “middle earners”

Well my figures say 4 million pay higher rate tax and there are 36 million people of a working age so that’s at least 10% but given that the average income is in the mid-20ks then yes not middle earners.

well half a million part time people earning less than 40k doesn’t have as much impact on the figures as the ~30m who are earning various figures who are in full time employment?

Even at 10%, its not middle earners, no. However, as far as household incomes go (taking in both earners), it’s probably around the middle ground. The

The trouble with earnings is that everyone’s perceptions are affected by their peers. In a survey in the US, something like 80% of people considered themselves middle class, and less than 2% considered themselves upper class. I’ve got a decent IT job, as I suspect do most people on here. Because a lot of the people I hang out with also have decent IT jobs, I don’t consider 45k an awful lot of money. I think TV has a part to play as well – all the property shows feature people buying/building 500k+ houses – it makes it seem like that’s not very much at all..