University funding: should higher earners be made to pay?

Absolutely not.

Completely changed since I finished my Higher Education when I got grants and there were no tuition fees. If there were guaranteed well paid jobs then by all means fees should be charged but in this current economic climate it seems very unfair.

It seems again that people who succeed are being targeted to subsidise people who don't. Surely if people who earn less have pay a higher rate of interest it would be an added incentive to earn more as you would then have to pay back less. All these taxes hitting the middle income earners just encourages people to not bother and take the easy option. Why strive to attain a top job and/or high salary when it will cost you more?

And I thought that higher earners already pay more in taxes - unless of course they are MPs who not only fiddle their expenses, but benefit further as these are not treated as taxable income anyway!

As mentioned by the author of the article, students who earn higher incomes will as a matter of course pay higher taxes for all of their working lives. I must say that I am at a complete loss to understand why they should pay anything extra, whether it is described as higher interest or a higher rate of tax, in addition to the ordinary income taxes that are levied upon them. Is this not just a recipe for incentivising able people to depart from this country after graduation, leaving us with the second raters - we have enough of them already. All students should be required to repay their tuition fees at the same rate of interest which might, as at present, be nil.

More consideration should be made to the Open University.Its standards and qualifications are recognised to be superior to most universities and don't

require living in except for a couple of weeks per year.

I totally agree with most of the comments here - those who earn more whether they have gone to University or not will be paying more throughout their working lives, so why should people bother?

As one commentator said we should be encouraging people to earn more not penalising them.

There are a lot of myths going round at present to muddy the water - take this alleged additional £100,000 that graduates are supposed to earn during their life - sounds a lot doesn't it - but just think about it, If the graduate is a higher rate taxpayer, and you don't have to be earning very much to be that these days, you will already have paid an additional £40,000 plus NIC on that money - say at least £50,000 in total. Then spread the remaining £50,000 over a working life of 40 years and you have an average £1,250 per year - big deal isn't it? Why flog your guts out on a grant for 3 - 4 years and then get £25 per week in your pocket for it, assuming of course you don't have to pay any interest on your grant in the first place. Even if you are a basic rate taxpayer all your life, the figures are not much better.

It sounds like a zero sum game to me!

I think an independent audit of what it actually costs to put on undergraduate courses is needed. The sort of large fees for large classes, a few hours a week, suggests that the students might be subsidising some other activities.

stan

I agree with Bob. I was lucky enough to go to university in the 1980s when I was able to get a full grant. I was born into a working class family, dad was a bus driver, mum was a part-time cleaner. I was the first in the family to go to University and certainly wouldn't have gone if I had been faced with the prospect of carrying long-term debts as a result. I estimate that my entire university education (fees and grant) cost the country around £10,000. Last year alone I paid over £37,000 in income tax, never mind VAT and other taxes. Has anyone done an ROI calculation comparing investment in higher education against other forms of government expenditure? A little research in this area might make support of further education a priority for this government, especially in a world where globalisation is rapidly increasing competition for skilled employment.

I work for an Indian company today and believe me, there are hundreds of thousands out there who are a lot hungrier for our jobs (and often better qualified for them) than most Brits are. Technology is enabling an increasing number of jobs to be done from anywhere in the world and our largest employers are increasingly exploiting this. They are able to tap into highly skilled workforces in India and elsewhere at far less than half the typical cost of an equivalent UK employee. Let's not sleepwalk into this. We need to be encouraging more of our people into further education, not putting up barriers.

Country need educated workforce to build and sustain strong economy. High quality & relevant university education must be supported and properly funded. Why not consider demand based university courses paid 50:50 by students and industry. I do feel there are some universities offering degree courses that are not quite relevant to modern economy. If student wish to enroll on courses that are not supported by employers than they should pay the full tuition fee.

As a high earning recent graduate I already contribute more to university funding via 40% tax and NI……… Why am I being asked to pay more?????

The older generation who have houses worth vastly more than they paid, final salary pensions (or at least able to accrue half decent pensions before Gordon’s dividend tax grab), who received child allowance payments and their kids have grown up, got paid to go to university via grants and already have jobs.

The younger generation will be saddled with huge debt from university (even at current fee levels), wont be able to get on the housing ladder, final salary pensions wont exist any more and for those in the private sector Gordon’s dividend tax grab will impact pension growth from day one and when they have kids there will be no child benefit. Assuming they can get a job that is.

The older generation got us in this mess by borrowing too much from the banks (somebody borrowed the money that went sub prime, Im sure they were not under 18). The older generations have profited over the last decade and squandered all the wealth this country had. Im sorry but these are the people who should be paying for the mess that we are in not their children.

What a GREAT pitty that JEZZER is not an adviser to the government education department.

If he/she were to be given that position, we would then have some commonsence prevailing.

Congratulations JEZZER your input was a pleasure to read.

This idea of highly paid graduates contributing additional amounts (ie,. additional in relation to the presumably onerous tax liabilities they will already incur) has its origins with the Lib Dems and, specifically, Vince Cable. Must this particular tail really continue to wag the Coalition dog? Mr Cameron should have the bottle to get rid of the blighter.

I too congratulate Jezzer. I am from an earlier intake – the 1960’s. Grants were means tested, but certain exams carried a grant which wasn’t. Tuition of course was free.

The real answer is of course a non PC one that the luvvies and Lord Brown dare not mention. In my day about 4% went to University. It was much harder. My GSE and A levels were marked by numbers 1 being the highest 6 being the lowest and 7 was just a fail.

Hardly anyone got a 1 – it was a real rarity.

Then when we got through the hoops we went and read real subjects – not Macramé Knitting or Football management.

The brightest of or youth should be nurtured – not penalised. Make a University education something of value to which the brightest may aspire. That doesn’t mean turning East Cheam 6th Form College into a University.

This will not only save the government more money than all these silly ideas, but will ensure we have a skilled and educated cohort, instead of the dumbed down rabble we are currently producing.

To those who are bright, go to a Russell University and are reading ‘proper’ subjects – one word of advice – EMIGRATE. You won’t have to repay the loan and you won’t have to bear the higher tax.

it is not about hitting all higher earners some cant get places in our own country because of foreign students who will probably walk away with the high paying jobs.talk about shooting your self in the foot.put a higher tax on them for ten years if they have gained from the tax payer.that way no pain without gain

This hardly seems fair to me. Many students view going to University as an easy option whilst putting off the inevitable hunt for a job after school/college ends and yet for many it will be a waste of time. There are so very many courses whatever your ability and A2 results that almost anyone could go to Uni somewhere in the UK and our fear of discrimination has led us to encourage all students to consider University. What we should be focusing on is helping our young people to develop whatever talents and skills they have: let those with sufficient intelligence (not money!) go to University and those with perhaps more vocational skills help them to develop those. Society needs to let them know that they are just as valuable in everyday life as anyone else with a medical, engineering, or scientific degree etc. After all, doctors and scientists still need plumbers, electricians and hairdressers etc. We have misled our young people into believing that they will only get a job or progress in life if they have a degree, ANY degree and then they face the disillusionment of the real world, where they find they cannot get a job with their media and leisure degrees because so many others have them too as it was an 'easy' option!

Universities complain that they are struggling to survive - maybe that's because there are too many of them and some simply aren't good enough - they should face reality and close. Bring back the Polytechnics and Specialised Colleges, offer courses and day release for vocational qualifications and let the 'proper' universities do what they do best! University SHOULD be more exclusive (not in class or money but ability) and those that succeed there will get good jobs, will be in a position to repay their student loans because they will earn more pay and will therefore pay high taxes too. Meanwhile, those who weren't so academically gifted should be able to get apprenticeships and be paid whilst they learn and they will feel valued members of the community as their skills will be in demand and, better still, they won't have a Student Loan hanging around their necks until they are 30 or more!

How can Scoltand & Wales continue to charge no fees, should the average charge in England be @ £7k / yr. This is fundementally unjust, should it happen.

There is definitely something wrong here fundamentally, not only fees but the whole concept of encouraging meritocracy.