« INTERVIEW: Guns N’ Roses guitarist Ron ‘Bumblefoot’ Thal | COMMENT: Violence on the Twelfth – Treat the cause, not the symptoms »
NEWS: Mixed reactions to graduate tax proposals
In a major speech yesterday, Business Secretary Vince Cable has suggested that the current top-up fees system should be replaced with an alternative graduate tax. This graduate tax would see students pay a marginally higher income tax than non-graduates. While details have not yet emerged, student leaders hope that the Cable proposals will mirror those of the NUS ‘Blueprint’. In this document, the NUS outlined a similar idea, where the more a graduate earns, the more they pay back – but even then it is a small percentage at 2.5%.
BY EMMA GALLEN
This proposal is likely to soothe tensions within Cable’s party over the looming threat of higher fees, especially after the last autumn’s Browne review. The Liberal Democrats pledged to phase out the fees system in their election manifesto, but have been accused of betraying students (and their many student voters) after abandoning this position in the coalition agreement.
While the student unions are broadly receptive to Cable’s proposal, student support is not universal. Many see a lifelong tax to be more unfair than fees; others may see university as an investment, with higher debt at a prestigious university worth the risk for a better potential career.
QUBSU VP Welfare Adam McGibbon thinks this mindset values university for the wrong reasons. “University is about learning about life and meeting people as well as gaining a qualification.” For McGibbon, Cable’s other proposals regarding university disregard some of the major benefits of campus life. The VP’s view is that encouraging more students to stay at home to study overlooks the importance of gaining independence.
Cable also dismisses classes with low contact time, claiming that there is “no need for seven hour weeks” and arguing they could be taught in two years instead of three. This proposal undermines the value of most Arts degrees where class time is minimal in order to allow more time for student reading and staff research.
VP Education Nathan Anderson stressed that students must be cautious in their readings of Cable’s proposal, highlighting that the majority of Cable’s cabinet are ideologically opposed to a “tax on the affluent.” He was also keen to make it known that Queen’s will not necessarily be affected by Cable’s proposals as Northern Ireland regulates its own universities and are have to carry out their own review. However, he does warn that the Browne review will set a precedent that Northern Ireland’s Department of Education and Learning will follow.
NUS-USI Deputy President Lorcan Mullen thinks that the proposals are an overall positive:
“While this is only a proposal, and a proposal facing likely opposition from the vice-chancellors and senior Tories (including ministers in Cable’s department), it is encouraging news. It is my firm view that any settlement that makes education free at the point of access, and brings proportionate post-degree contributions will be fairer.
Of course, the various student unions will make a proper assessment of Cable’s plans when more details are available. However, this should not distract students from the dangers of a zealously pro-market, pro-cuts government seeking to concurrently slash spending in our system.”
Tags: Emma Gallen, Gown, graduate tax, Lorcan Mullen, Nathan Anderson, newspaper, qub, Queen's, queen's university, student, students, The Gown
This entry was posted on Friday, July 16th, 2010 at 11:53 am and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Lorcan has got it nailed!
As for Mr Anderson, no need to be so dramatic about us becoming communist!! But very good examples of how individuals with different skills make up a functional society.
For me the real issue is that University should be free at the point of access, otherwise we miss out on the thousands of very intelligent people who have the potential to be the future leaders of our society just because they can't afford it.
In the UK only 5% of kids who've been in care go to University. What a waste. That is a disgrace for a G8 country.
I think Cable's proposals are much fairer than the current system, they are progressive, flat fees do not take any account of individuals.
Agreed Niall :) but which party brought in the fees and then the loans? :P
lol
I love the wee thumbs thingy and the way you can click your own :D
The question of what exactly is useful or sucess has still not been answered.
I agree that tradespeople, cleaners, labourers and other vocational jobs are a valuable. However we must not value the vocational to the cost of the academic lest we become like the communist party in Cambodia to distain academia.
For a society to work it requires many different skills and abilities. One is not more important than the other but merely different. It is like the body, can any organ really say to the other I don't need you and expect to work as effectively as a body? You use each organ in different contexts. So it is with different abilities in a state, some are academics, some are vocational but all are valuable.
To use your example it is true in a natural disaster historians would be of no direct use but indirectly they are. As far as natural disasters go we look at previous aid efforts and disasters and ask what can we do better? It is impossible to do such an analysis without using the past and this is one of the skills developed in History.
However I may ask you why should we worry about helping people in a natural disaster? Without AHSS we cannot know this.
History, Politics etc. are useful in that they make a contribution to democracy, understanding the human, understanding the society, analysing mistakes, pointing out dangers from history, also giving us a realistic and more accurate view of progress.
As for your point on Political Science (not my word) and Science I would like a clear and distinct definition of science before you declare what is and what is not science.
lol
Spoken like a true politician... or would you rather you're questions be regarded as the enlightened musings of a philosopher :P or is it a case of if keep you keep asking questions which go unanswered, it's supposed to make the other person out as if they do not know what they are talking about? Even though what they are saying is completely obvious
I didn't even read the whole of the past part. to me it just looks like an attempt to earn some more brownie points from the non-sciences. Although some of them are a good thing to have, the abundance of useless people is the real problem.
And remember... half the population are below average IQ... they are the people you want to target when it come to gatehring up brownie points :)
You can attack me if you wish, but unless you deal with the arguments and questions posed they still stand. :)
Nathan, going by your comments, if you were an organ you'd be a colon, you're completely full of shit.
lol, classic
I was thinkin he must have must have some length of hair and nails by now!
Don't Eat Moss is on to something there. This new system will not discourage "Mickey Mouse Subjects" any more than the current one does.
Those are the students least likey to get a career earning >£15,000 after graduation and therefore most likely not to repay their loan in the current system or pay much graduate tax in this new one (at least not in the immediate post uni years). In the words of the gown's latest article and of medical professionals alike "treat the cause..."
In my opinion, a useful degree is one which helps a country primarily to stand on its own feet and secondarily to further the success of the country.
when you work out what you would have to pay (tuition fees and loans) over the years, based on a growing salary at a realistic relatively low rate, the Unions scheme would result in me paying alot more than I currently would be. However, for ejits doing degrees which will result in them working in lower paid jobs, they come off having to pay less... do a bit of maths, it's a worthwhilie subject!
"In my opinion, a useful degree is one which helps a country primarily to stand on its own feet and secondarily to further the success of the country."
This is a rather vague definition, what is sucess? How do we measure success? More importantly how do you do this without historians and political sceintists?
**Scientists
Put it this way (completely hypothetical)... if we were to experience a natural disaster, say sever flooding, what use is a hostorian compared to a doctor, engineer or the most useful people of them all... the humble tradesman!
We are in a very snobby society that thinks it is their right to persue their hobby and claim that it is for the good of the country, that they are the future leaders, leading what exactly?
I can't believe you just suggested such a thing as political science... ask any scientist, this is not science, it's people talking bull in order to give themselves a job... a bluffer!
You're well placed in the Union Mr Anderson :P
** Blueprint
Well said Lorcan!
I agree with you Black smoke that we have to have a united view on this as students but a graduate tax need not be for a lifetime, rather the progressive model of graduate contributions put forward by NUS in the Bluebrint is a tax that would last only 20 years after graduation. However as Lorcan pointed out, you will be paying higher taxes (via income tax) as a graduate anyway as the chances are you will be earning more money as a graduate.
@ Don't Eat Moss:
"for doing a useful degree and being a success you have to pay more tax than everyone else… that’s a joke!"
That's what happens anyway. That's the underlying contributory principle of the welfare state; those earning more pay (marginally) more to service a more fair and humane society, but still have much more disposable income.
Income does not equal success, success does not always equal effort - a flat fee for all students, regardless of their post-uni career is arbitrary and unfair. A graduate tax would at least be proportionate.
Also, the extra tax isn't just extra money gone - it would replace fees/debt. And if the fees system stays in place, sooner rather than later (perhaps even this year) the government will abolish the cap, creating a market in education, leading to a disastrous Americanisation of our university system.
ie, 7-14k p/a fees as proposed (just to begin with), and a debt (regardless of future job opportuinities) much bigger than any replacement income-based graduate tax.
the LibDems have really screwed all those who voted for them...they along with their friends in the Tories will turn higher education in the prevail of the upper classes....again.
Press Release from the Aldwych Group:
The Aldwych group have welcomed the latest statement by Vince Cable in relation to Higher Education funding as this shows a willingness to think outside the box regarding university funding. However while there is much that can be welcomed in the statement of the business secretary, we must realise that students will not judge the government on its high sounding oratory but based on the fairness of their actions.
The Russell Group proposals to the review being carried out by Lord Browne, which suggest an increase in student tuition fees, is met with opposition from The Aldwych Group. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds would be deterred to enter institutions that would charge the highest fees, and therefore a broad debate about radical alternatives is important. It is important that potential Higher Education funding structures do more to increase access to university level, rather than deterring students from furthering their education. This refreshing statement by Vince Cable when contrasted with the Russell Group proposal reflects the diverse opinions by different bodies on the matter. It is quite ironic that while the Russell Group expresses their concern that a graduate tax would be unfair to students, they are championing an extension of the extremely unjust existing system.
I'm a man of science, so perhaps my degree would be classed as 'useful'. But men of faith may find they are paying more tax for no additional monetary gain.
Here's the thing sweet cheeks...people do not like taxes. If people think that they have to pay a tax for the rest of their lives to go to Uni, they simply won't go. On the other hand, knowing you'll have to pay a tax for the rest of your life may make you value your degree more.
Let's hope our MLAs here do try to fix things, rather than always trying to run away.
The SU and students need to have a united stance on this: Like, if we can't live together, then we're going to die alone.
Dude.
Apologies for my previous lack of clarity, how do you determine what is a useful degree?
Pray tell.
What is a useful degree? Pray tell.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The purpose of "educating" citizens is not for an individuals personal gain, but for the gain of the country as a whole.
A few of the big issues like back-dating, drop-outs and pay-based taxing as recomended by the Students Union.... have you seen their pay based taxing scheme? ie. for doing a useful degree and being a success you have to pay more tax than everyone else... that's a joke!
Loading ...
How come my last two posts were not displayed?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like