New ‘graduate tax’ could replace university tuition fees

Reduce the number of 'Mickey Mouse' degrees, and give more financial support to those students studying subjects which are key to the economy.

Surely it's about time the educational system reflected the realities of 21st century paradigm shift in how the world works.

I agree with the union, Graduates are almost always tax-payers thus they do pay. Graduates usually earn more than non-degree holders and thus pay more tax anyway so are they are already paying more. This is the problem with governments. They forget it is not their money it is the tax-payers money.

This does sound like a re-branding for the same bad system we currently have.

What about those who do not graduate? they may spend 2 years in uni, as a doss, i saw it all the time. Not being graduates do they not have to pay it back?

Two year degrees are a bad idea all round. My course was seriously stressful as it was and it was 4 years, 1 in industry. I cant imagine cramming 3 years of study into 2 years.

With a universal tax, what is the point of salting away cash now for one's children or grandchildren so that they do not start work with an almighty great loan to repay or a special tax. Where is the incentive to save and be prudent in this solution ?

Too many students doing degrees that are pointless. We need knwoledge workers, peopel with skills in co-operation and standing on their own two feet, showing initiative etc. They should focus on what we need from the system and then how to find it properly and fairly.

A graduate tax is just double taxation - grads already pay tax and most will pay more than the average. Many will also contribute more than most. eg a doctor will save lives and pay high taxes due to their higher earnings, now they want to add yet more payment.

If they want to reduce our deficit then reduce the pointless jobs, pointless government work and burden of administration on business.

OK lets have some sense here. If we seek to make quality education available to all it has to be paid for. Most kids at 18 are unable to fund three years at Uni; and you cant always live with parents, the nearest Uni that offers a suitable course for your needs may be hundreds of miles away. Starting employment as a graduate with a huge loan to repay isnt a great option. It seems to me a graduate tax is the best option we have left.

However the real need is to ensure that we are providing the kinds of education our society needs to be productive, so that graduates will find jobs waiting, rather than leaving uni to hit the dole queue.

And subsidise degree programs that offer this kind of education to make "hard" degrees - math, sciences, engineering etc - more attractive.

Surely for many degrees two year degrees are quite possible. Most students finish their year at the end of May and don't go back until October - a five month break. In addition many degree courses have many blank days each week when students are meant to be studying but, we all know, are usually spent in bed until lunchtime (or later) recovering from the previous night's drinking session. A shorter course will mean students will incur much less debt and will maximise the use of their digs - many landlords make them pay for a full year even when they only use them for 7 or 8 months.

A shorter degree course means students can go out and find jobs quicker and will have much less debt plus the University's costs should be reduced. Surely the only losers are the University tutors who might have to increase their hours to maybe half the hours that other people have to work - surely they could manage that?

There must be exceptions, however, for the more intense degrees such as medicine, physics etc. which require much more intense tutoring. Since these are vital to the future of our country, (unlike tourism degrees or even law degrees), could they not devise a scheme whereby their fees are paid in return for a commitment to working for the the NHS (or whatever) for (say) 5 years?

I agree strongly with Bernadette - degrees which contribute strongly to the economy and welfare of the country need to be subsidised and encouraged. Those who choose to study degrees for pure enjoyment and self-improvement should not receive such assistance.

I studied a degree in real estate management, with a highly beneficial year in industry, landed a job with a major advisory firm and have now completed my professional qualifications to become a chartered surveyor - for me, university was worth every penny. I am a huge advocate of practical, vocational degrees that encourage people to progress and contribute, rather than dream and theorise.

2-year degrees would not be such a bad thing in my opinion either - I think I speak for many of my peers when I say we could have compressed our learning to within 2 years.

The first 3 posters have all made very valid points. My Engineering Degree was 4 years, with lectures/seminars/tutorials and practicals from 9-5 5 days a week, (except Wed afternoons for sports). It would simply not be feasible to reduce this into 3 years, never mind 2!!

My sons are now at Univ taking Sports Science Degrees. They attend lectures and tutorials for a few hours a week, the rest of the time is allegedly spent "reading around the subject" and doing "coursework". Clearly on the more "vocational" course there is huge scoipe to condense. However, I am paying all their living expenses and fees to ensure they have no debt when they graduate. What is the point if suddently they are to be taxed another, what 3p in the pound say, for the rest of their working life?

If this had been dreamt up by the clowns in the previous "government" I wouldn't have been surprised, but coming from Cable? Has he gone mad? This idea simply will not work in practice.

The entire education system needs rethinking. It is based on the 250 year old prussian system which is no longer fit for purpose. Educational vouchers from birth, less school and more apprenticeship schemes are the way forward. Virtual class rooms and learning webs are now technical reality. (see Ivan Illich "Deschooling Society")

The current system promotes a myth of meritocracy and career nirvana. The reality is somewhat different and leads to disappointed and disillusioned graduates.

Someone needs to be kind enough to tell the kids that not everyone can be at the top no matter how many graduates the universities churn out with 1st class degrees.

Removing polytechnics was a big mistake. It is ironic that people laughed at polytechnics from academic snobbery. In europe kids fight like hell to get in to the equivalent of a polytechnic because they know there will be a job at the end of the study whereas universities produce graduates with no relevant skills.

One thing Vince could do is force universities to make all courses sandwich courses whereby the graduate could not graduate until he had relevant work placement experience. This would stop students studying utterly pointless courses.

I don't understand all the moaning here. I agree with John Errington; university education doesn't come cheap and someone has to pay for it.

Having a degree increases your job prospects and lifetime earnings, so it is fair that higher education shouldn't be funded by taxpayers in general, but rather by those benefiting from it i.e. graduates. Paying for it upfront and having a big student loan afterwards or paying for it via a post-graduation tax that is adjusted for your earnings - all the same, except that the latter seems a bit fairer.

In particular, people looking to study science degrees may get a better deal out of a graduate tax scheme. Careers in science are fundamental to society but pay poorly; perhaps more students would be interested if the cost of their studies was softened by the income-adjusted graduate tax, rather than paying just as much for their degree as a degree in subjects that are perhaps not as demanding for the student, but which lead to better paying but less socially necessary careers such as, hmmm, banking.

KK - the incentive of this tax would be to subsidize those people studying the less useful subjects. Despite science paying relatively poorly compared to medicine it pays far better than does most of the arts. This policy would just make even more of an incentive to go study arts than there is already. Let's see - more girls, lots of "reading", 2 hours of lectures a week, and fantastic, now I don't even have to pay for it.

Science and engineering is always the underdog - and now Vince is asking us to subsidize the tourists.

The only way this could be "fair" is if STEM graduates are excluded from the tax.

The main problem with this tax is that it will become like NI - a massive unfunded liability. At least today we can see how much university costs. Where would this tax stop? 1%, 2%, next year 5%. How much would lecturers get paid? what's to stop them blackmailing the government for more?

This is a very bad idea Mr.Cable.

I pay almost exactly the same percentage of my income in taxes as my Father did, yet the taxes he paid enabled me to have an enducation free of tuition fees. If the taxes I now pay cannot pay for the tuition of todays students, then what exactly is the Government squandering our taxes on?

Vince said this morning that a graduate earns £100,000 net more over a lifetime than a non graduate. That's about £30,000 in additional tax & National Insurance. More than enough to cover the tuition fees, I would have thought, without the need to introduce an extra tax on graduates. Vince must think most of the population can't do basic maths

Vince has just got this all wrong. Britain needs to learn to live within its means (e.g. rebalance the trade deficit - 4bn GBP per month) not tax the hell out of every successful individual.

Vince is supposed to be business secretary. If he doesn't have the balls to tackle the structural problems (like addressing the trade deficit) then he is not fit for office.

Graduates are a soft target. Tax is supposed to pay for education anyway. The argument for growth in tertiary education was to make people employable so that those people could contribute to the economy and create wealth. The government needs to admit if that policy has failed. If the fallacy that going to university does not automatically lead to a better job has finally been proven then tertiary education needs a rethink.

This is just an excuse for a tax raid on the middle class.

if tertiary education is failing then the government needs to show which sectors are unproductive and stop funding those courses. That would be much more sensible.

A bad Idea Vince. Reduce the time for some courses yes. Free degrees for those with ability perhaps the top 10% of A level students, remove the EMA bribe from 16 year olds and spend it on the above.

It seems that it is impossible for people to talk about degrees in this forum without the specter of so-called 'mickey mouse' degrees looming large. Are you all really under the impression that there is any significant number of people taking worthless degrees? I have never met any. It doesn't make sense to say that the graduate tax would encourage people to take arts degrees - they are only attractive to people with no career ambitions to begin with. I bet there weren't more people doing Arts degrees when they were free than there are now.

Think clearly, folks. The country is in debt. We won't go back to a place where the general taxpayer is paying for the university education for the benefit of only some. It has to be paid for by the student (or their parents), some way or another.

Sounds like the dumbing down of degree courses. A proper degree in a useful subject takes 3 years minimum. My engineering degree course took 4 years. Graduate tax already exists; if a graduate earns 10% extra he/she will reay tuition fees after 8 years by extra income tax. Discouraging bright students is just what the country does not need. How about saving money by instructing universities to close courses in mickey mouse subjects? Now that does make sense.

@KK - I understand your sentiments about mickey mouse degrees but there is some value to these comments. Thinking clearly we should be asking "what is education and what is the purpose of education?". Do people learn or are people taught? If people are taught at what point do they know enough to learn by themselves?

The current educational system is evolved from the prussian system of the 18th century. Is this system really still fit for purpose?

Great philosophers from Plato, to Rousseau, to Illich have been pondering this question for thousands of years, yet most people are not aware that there was ever a debate and just take the system for granted.

The reason for this is that politicians and pedagogues are addicted to selling the notion of meritocracy (see Young's "The Rise of the Meritocracy") while research shows that chances are not so random (Herrnstein and Murray - "The Bell Curve") as pedagogues and politicians would have us believe.

Churning out graduates for the sake of it isn't really helping anyone, especially as approximately 50% of them will not even get to use what they have learned in the workplace. This has made the modern education system a race to nowhere for 50% of the participants.

The 50% without a 2.1 or 1st are somehow labelled as below standard which will be doing nothing for self-esteem while wasting an awful lot of time learning the hard lesson that not everyone can be number 1.

It would be much better if people can try to find something earlier on where they can make a difference and be valued rather than producing people with a strong sense of entitlement through the tertiary education system.

anyway, fine to have a (graduate) tax to pay for tertiary education as long as all the content of every degree course in the UK is made openly available to all.

It wouldn't be democratic to tax us all and then deny us access for what we are paying.