Labour to cut Tuition Fees...
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
....
It costs more. It costs me more as my taxes pay for the shortfall. If that is the job that it was designed to do, then that's what it has done to perfection.
If you want to look back into the original thread, I predicted that it was cost more, and put in an explanation. I was largely derided, the suggestion being I was some lefty because I wanted STEM degrees funded. The only place where I was wrong was in predicting the amount of the shortfall.
I doubt anyone would be shocked at politicians managing to make a new policy more expensive to implement than something it replaces....or even have unintended consequences.It costs more. It costs me more as my taxes pay for the shortfall. If that is the job that it was designed to do, then that's what it has done to perfection.
If you want to look back into the original thread, I predicted that it was cost more, and put in an explanation. I was largely derided, the suggestion being I was some lefty because I wanted STEM degrees funded. The only place where I was wrong was in predicting the amount of the shortfall.
I cannot see Mr Milliband's latest brain wave improving that particular situation either.
In general I tend to agree with you wrt STEM degrees. Fund only those and have selection based purely on ability and I'd be OK with it to a point. Though that has to be taken in the context of the country's finances in general. Perhaps making non-STEM increasingly unattractive (unless someone is absolutely committed) might work
Murph7355 said:
Derek Smith said:
....
It costs more. It costs me more as my taxes pay for the shortfall. If that is the job that it was designed to do, then that's what it has done to perfection.
If you want to look back into the original thread, I predicted that it was cost more, and put in an explanation. I was largely derided, the suggestion being I was some lefty because I wanted STEM degrees funded. The only place where I was wrong was in predicting the amount of the shortfall.
I doubt anyone would be shocked at politicians managing to make a new policy more expensive to implement than something it replaces....or even have unintended consequences.It costs more. It costs me more as my taxes pay for the shortfall. If that is the job that it was designed to do, then that's what it has done to perfection.
If you want to look back into the original thread, I predicted that it was cost more, and put in an explanation. I was largely derided, the suggestion being I was some lefty because I wanted STEM degrees funded. The only place where I was wrong was in predicting the amount of the shortfall.
I cannot see Mr Milliband's latest brain wave improving that particular situation either.
In general I tend to agree with you wrt STEM degrees. Fund only those and have selection based purely on ability and I'd be OK with it to a point. Though that has to be taken in the context of the country's finances in general. Perhaps making non-STEM increasingly unattractive (unless someone is absolutely committed) might work
Twin1 said:
I always find myself leading back to tuition fees: discourage people from wasting their time by charging them money for it. Along with a more robust system of repayment, maybe we'd have a fix.
That's thee key bit though isn't it, the repayment system. The current levels were sold on the lines that you don't repay much, if anything, until you're earning good money, so it's more of an extra tax for lots of people rather than a debt that gets repaid.I can't see anyone offering a system that discourages people wasting the loans on pissing around with pointless courses because that means setting a repayment level low enough to significantly affect people that 'graduate' into relatively low paid jobs.
It would need to be something like 10% repayment at £15k income to really be a deterrent. Imagine the outcry!
brickwall said:
The maths is crazily complex. Under the Labour scheme:
- Graduates will continue to pay off their loan with repayments of 9% of gross income above £21k. (I.e. If you earn £22k, you pay £90 a year, or £7.50 a month)
- The change in the debt graduates leave university with therefore only affects how long a graduate makes repayments for, not the monthly amount of those repayments
- However, like the current scheme, any remaining debt is wiped off after 30 years. At present, the government expects only 60% of male graduates and 20% of female graduates will pay off their full debt within the 30-year window. Overall, the government expects to wipe off some ~45% of the total student debt.
- When you lower the debt per student, this means more students will pay of their debt within the 30 years. But a lot still won't - they don't benefit under this scheme.
- The government will face a lower debt write-off cost, but a much higher cost in providing lump sums to universities.
In short - who benefits: High-earning graduates.
Who faces no change: Lower-earning graduates. Lots of women (very few of those who take a career break or go part time repay their loan within the 30 year window).
Who loses: The taxpayer funding this (see pensions discussion above).
I disagree that high earners will be the winners. Their pension tax relief will be reduced from 45% to 20%. This will far outweigh any savings that they make in the reduced tuition fees.- Graduates will continue to pay off their loan with repayments of 9% of gross income above £21k. (I.e. If you earn £22k, you pay £90 a year, or £7.50 a month)
- The change in the debt graduates leave university with therefore only affects how long a graduate makes repayments for, not the monthly amount of those repayments
- However, like the current scheme, any remaining debt is wiped off after 30 years. At present, the government expects only 60% of male graduates and 20% of female graduates will pay off their full debt within the 30-year window. Overall, the government expects to wipe off some ~45% of the total student debt.
- When you lower the debt per student, this means more students will pay of their debt within the 30 years. But a lot still won't - they don't benefit under this scheme.
- The government will face a lower debt write-off cost, but a much higher cost in providing lump sums to universities.
In short - who benefits: High-earning graduates.
Who faces no change: Lower-earning graduates. Lots of women (very few of those who take a career break or go part time repay their loan within the 30 year window).
Who loses: The taxpayer funding this (see pensions discussion above).
Edited by brickwall on Saturday 28th February 15:52
A three year course = £27000, Labour cost = £18000 (£9000 saved over 30 years assuming 0% interest rate)
£100000pa earner can put £15000 towards pension (45% of £15000 = £6750, 20% of £15000 = £3000) Labour cost = £3750 per year
In three years, the high earner's lost tax relief is more that the total saving of their tuition fees.
Does my man-maths make sense?
Note: I disagree with high earners being able to get high rate tax relief, but that is another argument.
davepoth said:
...to a maximum of £6000. They will fund this by canceling a corporation tax cut, and by charging extra interest to the highest earning graduates.
Thoughts?
Seems to me all party's do something for joe blogs to go yeah.Thoughts?
Everyone wants stuff for free, seems a general view on life in Britain now.
But we can't afford it, no one wants to here that.
I didn't go to university, approx 20-30 people I know did. Only 3 or 4 earn better money than me, seems to be a lot of courses that don't really matter when looking for a job.
Ilovejapcrap said:
davepoth said:
...to a maximum of £6000. They will fund this by canceling a corporation tax cut, and by charging extra interest to the highest earning graduates.
Thoughts?
Seems to me all party's do something for joe blogs to go yeah.Thoughts?
Everyone wants stuff for free, seems a general view on life in Britain now.
But we can't afford it, no one wants to here that.
I didn't go to university, approx 20-30 people I know did. Only 3 or 4 earn better money than me, seems to be a lot of courses that don't really matter when looking for a job.
Not that a degree always equates to that, as most people I know with degrees are teachers and that's a job I'd never consider doing!
SpeedMattersNot said:
Ilovejapcrap said:
davepoth said:
...to a maximum of £6000. They will fund this by canceling a corporation tax cut, and by charging extra interest to the highest earning graduates.
Thoughts?
Seems to me all party's do something for joe blogs to go yeah.Thoughts?
Everyone wants stuff for free, seems a general view on life in Britain now.
But we can't afford it, no one wants to here that.
I didn't go to university, approx 20-30 people I know did. Only 3 or 4 earn better money than me, seems to be a lot of courses that don't really matter when looking for a job.
Not that a degree always equates to that, as most people I know with degrees are teachers and that's a job I'd never consider doing!
Remeber those who can't teach
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff