Earn An Extra £100K Net Of Tax

[babesagainstmachines]

I am really pissed off with this. If an average graduate earns an extra £100k NET OF TAX as claimed, they are already going to be paying an extra £20k minimum in income tax, plus around £11k in additional NICs. They are already paying £30k more, which nicely covers tuition fees.

This is not to mention all the extra consumption taxes they will pay whilst spending this extra £100k.

Why aren't the students ramming this point home more?

[Harry Monk]

The reality is that the average graduate can't even get a NMW job as a cleaner.

[bumpy]

The reality is that the average graduate can't even get a NMW job as a cleaner.

I think the key word here is 'average', because that's what most of these graduates are.

Since the 60's when the British economy flourished very nicely the number of people going to university has increase four fold. Now, unless the theory of evolution has changed completely, this just means we are paying to put a very large number of average kids through university.

It's not a sound use of tax payers money.

[Kyoto]

I just mentioned in another thread that my tax bill went up at 40 times over as a direct result of going to uni.

This is obviously an extreme example but each one of me pays for 40 students who don't gain anything from going to university.

I certainly wouldn't gave gone under the new fee structure.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Kyoto

[slacker]

I think the key word here is 'average', because that's what most of these graduates are.

You'd have to redefine the meaning of average for more students to be above average then below average. 50% of them are below average currently.

[SomethingHasToGive]

I am really pissed off with this. If an average graduate earns an extra £100k NET OF TAX as claimed, they are already going to be paying an extra £20k minimum in income tax, plus around £11k in additional NICs. They are already paying £30k more, which nicely covers tuition fees.

Does anyone know where these figures come from? It wouldn't suprise me if they are based on the incomes of baby boomers and as such wouldn't apply to the currnt crop of students.

If that is the case they have been sold broken dreams.

[Executive Sadman]

Isnt that £100k the amount in excess theyll get in their entire working life, not per year.

[Democorruptcy]

I watched Question Time last night and thought I heard the bloke from the student union say that most graduates didn't pay back any tuition fees because they moved abroad. He favoured a graduate tax but said that wouldn't stop people escaping paying fees by moving abroad.

If they do escape fees by moving abroad increasing the amount of debt + interest is going to make moving abroad more and more attractive. Therefore the public will finish up paying 100% of fees for nothing. This supposed economic benefit we get from graduates will be lost when they leave the UK.

[clloyd]

Isnt that £100k the amount in excess theyll get in their entire working life, not per year.

Yes, 100k over the lifetime.

Any that is irrelevant IMHO, if a 16 year old decides to leave school and set up an innovative business & earn 50k + per year for themselves and starts to pay higher rate tax he (or she) too will pay higher rate tax on that income. Higher tax bill are for higher wages not for going to uni so why say they will repay the fees already because of their increased lifetime earnings. Bottom line is if you want to go to uni you should be prepared to pay for it and not expect someone else to pay for you.

[N1AK]

A graduate tax has to be one of the most terrible ideas to deal with student tuition imaginable. I was dubious enough about taking out a student loan, because I was concerned that the government would change the terms. In practice they did, by stopping it going negative last year, fortunately it has only been a small change so far...

If I do a degree and get lumped paying graduate tax, I'm committing to pay a tax for 40+ years. How can I possibly be confident that the tax level won't rise etc? I'd be much, much, better off going to university abroad and paying up front (which my family could borderline afford, inc re-mortgage).

Frankly, given the rate I'm approaching > 50% taxation, and my general distaste for the bitter attitude of many locals, moving abroad still seems extremely appealing.

[babesagainstmachines]

Yes, 100k over the lifetime.

Any that is irrelevant IMHO, if a 16 year old decides to leave school and set up an innovative business & earn 50k + per year for themselves and starts to pay higher rate tax he (or she) too will pay higher rate tax on that income. Higher tax bill are for higher wages not for going to uni so why say they will repay the fees already because of their increased lifetime earnings. Bottom line is if you want to go to uni you should be prepared to pay for it and not expect someone else to pay for you.

"They" are the ones saying that you will earn £100k net of tax if you get a degree. If that is the case, then sending somebody to university is on boon to the tax payer, not a burden. It has nothing to do with how much you earn, it has to do with how much of this is because you have received higher education. Put it this way... the business owner in your example is reaping the benefits of higher earning customer, and also a larger tax base to pay for public services.

Unless the whole thing is a sham designed to mask rising unemployment, which is basically what I actually consider it to be, and politicians need to stop lying (fat chance).

Edited December 10, 2010 by BabesAgainstTheMachine

[Executive Sadman]

Yes, 100k over the lifetime.

Any that is irrelevant IMHO, if a 16 year old decides to leave school and set up an innovative business & earn 50k + per year for themselves and starts to pay higher rate tax he (or she) too will pay higher rate tax on that income. Higher tax bill are for higher wages not for going to uni so why say they will repay the fees already because of their increased lifetime earnings. Bottom line is if you want to go to uni you should be prepared to pay for it and not expect someone else to pay for you.

Yes, i agree.

The argument seems to be 'it isnt fair' (that previous generations didnt pay)

Doesnt seem like much of an argument.

Is it fair some generations get to buy cheaper housing than others?

Is it fair some generations suffer high interest rates?

Is it fair some are born at a time when medicine prolongs their lives?

Is it fair some are born into having to fight in wars?

If you think it isnt, then dont buy an overinflated home! If you think the cost of uni isnt fair, then dont go, no one is forcing you to.

There is no argument other than it benefits society, which, i would think is limited to the 20% or so of graduates training to be doctors, engineers and so on. There is obviously an upper limit, as most people work in service/retail/telesales jobs, and id imagine 50% of school leavers going to uni is well above that limit.

I wouldnt mind having a grants system back, but only for the 20% of so of leavers going on to do degrees which are absolutely neccessary.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

I am really pissed off with this. If an average graduate earns an extra £100k NET OF TAX as claimed, they are already going to be paying an extra £20k minimum in income tax, plus around £11k in additional NICs. They are already paying £30k more, which nicely covers tuition fees.

This is not to mention all the extra consumption taxes they will pay whilst spending this extra £100k.

Why aren't the students ramming this point home more?

Maybe they can all become plumbers and work cash in had....the goberment hasnt really thought this through....

[payback period]

Since the 60's when the British economy flourished very nicely the number of people going to university has increase four fold. Now, unless the theory of evolution has changed completely, this just means we are paying to put a very large number of average kids through university.

They didn't have laptops in the 60s. They had a large amount of manual work in factories.

The nature of work in Britain has changed greatly. A knowledge economy requires a high level of education.

[tomwatkins]

They didn't have laptops in the 60s. They had a large amount of manual work in factories.

The nature of work in Britain has changed greatly. A knowledge economy requires a high level of education.

Really? So why can't I get a plumber, a chippie or a spark when I want one?

[babesagainstmachines]

Really? So why can't I get a plumber, a chippie or a spark when I want one?

I don't have any problem getting one. They just cost an awful lot, and are shit.

[PopGun]

Really? So why can't I get a plumber, a chippie or a spark when I want one?

Because our chippie, plumber sparky parents brainwashed us into thinking that sparking, chipping and plumbing was a mugs game!

"Don't end up like me son............. be the first in the family to get a degree, any degree"

Like it or not, kids have been shoe horned into a massively over expanded HE industry, and now they don't know how to pay for it.

[Johnny Storm]

Yes, 100k over the lifetime.

So £2.5k a year over a 40 year working life. Not worth bothering with.

Lets face it though, going to Uni broadens your horizons, is a fun time, and some people actually learn something worthwhile! None of that is to say that the tax payer should pay for it.

[bumpy]

They didn't have laptops in the 60s. They had a large amount of manual work in factories.

The nature of work in Britain has changed greatly. A knowledge economy requires a high level of education.

And this change from manufacturing to knowledge has helped us how exactly?

It seems we have engineered a larger number of graduates to avoid high unemployment statistics. The new degrees are very soft and designed to accommodate the less bright graduates.

[Lepista]

Are the student fees paid pack pre- or post-tax...?

[LivingWithTheInlaws]

One of the arguments that David Cameron put in his Evening Standard piece was that many tax payers don't get direct benefit from the government paying the fees. Well, that's bonkers as an argument. There are tons of things the government pays for that I don't get a direct benefit from. Every kind of benefit payment for instance. Nobody pointed this out either.

[Caveat Mortgagor]

One of the arguments that David Cameron put in his Evening Standard piece was that many tax payers don't get direct benefit from the government paying the fees. Well, that's bonkers as an argument. There are tons of things the government pays for that I don't get a direct benefit from. Every kind of benefit payment for instance. Nobody pointed this out either.

I'm glad someone else has noticed this.

After hearing the argument last night that we cannot expect someone who has never gone to uni to pay taxes to fund others who do go, I thought of looking on the directgov website for instructions on how to get my rebate for the fact Ive never claimed unemployment benefit of any kind, smi, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit, tax credits etc.

Got to be worth a 5 figure refund cheque for the current year alone I reckon.

[RichB]

Yes, 100k over the lifetime.

Feckin ell.. when labour started espousing this garbage a year or 3 back, the number they were using was 400K. Vince quoted 300k earlier this year...

Now on 100k, no wonder they are all livid.

[A.steve]

Let me first state my bias: I believe everyone should want to go to University; I think just-about everyone would benefit from the experience - and that individuals should chose subjects in which they are interested in order to gain maximum benefit. I don't subscribe to the idea that some subjects are worthwhile (though, obviously, different disciplines require different levels of commitment) as, if someone knows about any subject to degree level, they have achieved something worthwhile that has potential to be valuable to them.

I was lucky enough to be one of the last undergraduates to get a grant... and, while I think it preferable to borrow and attend university, over passing up the opportunity, I'd prefer to see grants available to any determined student. I think the benefits to the tax cougher of subsequent activity greatly exceeds the cost of funding the student.

The thing that bothers me most, however, is this: how much should it cost to pursue a degree? Let's assume courses to be run for 200 undergraduates at a time; that 4 lecturers are required to run courses and plan/mark examinations. If each lecturer earns, say £50K - then that gives a cost of £200K - which works out a cost of £1K per student. Sure, there are university facilities that must also be paid for - but for even the current fees, this seems an exceptionally expensive rent to pay for a lecture hall. I wonder if the real reason for the hike in costs has more to do with academics than students. Most academics I've met would prefer to be doing research than teaching - the latter being seen as a necessary evil. I wonder if what's happening is that academics - faced by absence of funding for research projects - are trying to maintain their personal incomes by driving up costs for students? I wonder what proportion of university gross revenues are required to pay interest on imprudently acquired loans?

[LivingWithTheInlaws]

Let me first state my bias: I believe everyone should want to go to University; I think just-about everyone would benefit from the experience - and that individuals should chose subjects in which they are interested in order to gain maximum benefit. I don't subscribe to the idea that some subjects are worthwhile (though, obviously, different disciplines require different levels of commitment) as, if someone knows about any subject to degree level, they have achieved something worthwhile that has potential to be valuable to them.

I was lucky enough to be one of the last undergraduates to get a grant... and, while I think it preferable to borrow and attend university, over passing up the opportunity, I'd prefer to see grants available to any determined student. I think the benefits to the tax cougher of subsequent activity greatly exceeds the cost of funding the student.

The thing that bothers me most, however, is this: how much should it cost to pursue a degree? Let's assume courses to be run for 200 undergraduates at a time; that 4 lecturers are required to run courses and plan/mark examinations. If each lecturer earns, say £50K - then that gives a cost of £200K - which works out a cost of £1K per student. Sure, there are university facilities that must also be paid for - but for even the current fees, this seems an exceptionally expensive rent to pay for a lecture hall. I wonder if the real reason for the hike in costs has more to do with academics than students. Most academics I've met would prefer to be doing research than teaching - the latter being seen as a necessary evil. I wonder if what's happening is that academics - faced by absence of funding for research projects - are trying to maintain their personal incomes by driving up costs for students? I wonder what proportion of university gross revenues are required to pay interest on imprudently acquired loans?

Depends on the course. I did electronics so the University needs lots of computers and stuff in the labs to run that course. Oscilloscopes aren't cheap for instance. Then there are lab assistants. On the opposite side of the coin, there's a lot that a department like that can do that they can sell to industry. So I don't know what a reasonable price for the course would be but it's not as simple as you've described.