Is it "socially unjust" to charge young students for their university education?

[Jbanged]

There will always be inequality in education as some people are more intelligent, or able to study, than others. The brightest should go to the best Unis - if they don't we won't produce the surgeons, scientists etc that we need. I really wish rather than setting targets for kids to go to Uni, previous governments used the money to set up more training centres, and fund more training, for non academic skills. Wonder how many potentially great mechanics, plumbers, electricians etc ended up doing a bloody media studies degree because if the pressure to go to Uni and the lack of opportunity to learn a decent trade...........

Couldn't agree more with this

 

[Creaky]

Well you might want to say that the increase tax take from millions of others might effect those too, or you might want to say that the likely increased lifetime salary that degrees usually offer offset any disadvantage to any outstanding student loan, take your pick.

Ultimately earning a degree offers a likelyhood to considerably higher wages and opportunities in the workplace, crunching the numbers aint difficult.

The repayments, to me seem quite passive and manageable.

The repayment trigger is £21000 and you have to pay 9% of each pound over that, so an annual income of £25000 gives a repayment liability of 9% of £4000 a sustainable £365 per year, play with the figures as much as you want but it seems more than reasonable.

I don't dispute that the repayment liabilities are sustainable. I would however argue that central goverment funding of universities is little or no more expensive than funding via the student loan system and that the general tax payer therefore sees no benefit from the latter.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated that the cost to central government of funding via student loans is just £1,200 less per student for a three year course, (£400 per year), than direct funding. Costs are actually much higher over the initial years as the number of students making repayments are still relatively low. The Institute also estimates that fees need only rise by a further £500 per annum for the break even point to be reached!

The argument that it is only fair that sudents should pay for their education rather than all taxpayers just doesn't hold water - students may end up paying for their own education but the saving to taxpayers is little or nothing.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r94.pdf

 

[yxee]

No, no you don't. You can raise money to cover additional spending.

The part of my quotation that you manually removed addresses this point. Not everyone wants to pay for these degrees.

 

[BigGully]

If you are going to take that stance why not just up tax by 9% to everyone over that threshold? It would raise more money! You can not complain as it is more than reasonable.

What ??

You are just saying tax more people and spend more money, some agree, I do not.

Again the statistics show that those with degrees are more likely to earn considerably more money throughout their working life than those that do not, therefore those that benefit should ultimately burden the cost, as has already been pointed out the repayment demands are both manageable and wholly appropriate ............... in my opinion

 

[BigGully]

I don't dispute that the repayment liabilities are sustainable. I would however argue that central goverment funding of universities is little or no more expensive than funding via the student loan system and that the general tax payer therefore sees no benefit from the latter.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated that the cost to central government of funding via student loans is just £1,200 less per student for a three year course, (£400 per year), than direct funding. Costs are actually much higher over the initial years as the number of students making repayments are still relatively low. The Institute also estimates that fees need only rise by a further £500 per annum for the break even point to be reached!

The argument that it is only fair that sudents should pay for their education rather than all taxpayers just doesn't hold water - students may end up paying for their own education but the saving to taxpayers is little or nothing.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r94.pdf

There remains a saving, so as with all Government spending it seems reasonable to then investigate its merits, it hasnt effected recruitment or negatively effected the net earning power of those that then have to pay back their fee's.

My wife has only now paid off her student loan and my eldest Son has only just started his repayment schedule of his, it would be nice not to have to pay but I acknowledge that overall we are likely to benefit.

 

[Creaky]

What ??

You are just saying tax more people and spend more money, some agree, I do not.

Again the statistics show that those with degrees are more likely to earn considerably more money throughout their working life than those that do not, therefore those that benefit should ultimately burden the cost, as has already been pointed out the repayment demands are both manageable and wholly appropriate ............... in my opinion

What those statistics don't and can't show is that it is the university degree which is responsible for the higher earnings.

It is just as likely, probably more so, that those attending university simply have a higher earning potential than those that don't.

As many have pointed out a large number of graduates never use their degree in the workplace or even work in a relevant role. Arguing that these individuals are earning more due to their university education is very shaky but they must be earning more none the less for the figures to stack up.

 

[BigGully]

What those statistics don't and can't show is that it is the university degree which is responsible for the higher earnings.

It is just as likely, probably more so, that those attending university simply have a higher earning potential than those that don't.

As many have pointed out a large number of graduates never use their degree in the workplace or even work in a relevant role. Arguing that these individuals are earning more due to their university education is very shaky but they must be earning more none the less for the figures to stack up.

Either way, you have said that there are real savings and thats key, the rest of the debate, for me anyway seems a quite reasonable return from those accessing the extra education rather than spreading it throughout the population where most do not or can not access it.

 

[BigGully]

If it is manageable why are you against higher taxes?
Also everyone benefits from an educated society not just the person being educated. I do always wonder about those average wage stats as it hides the distribution of wages. The mean value could well be skewed by a few earning a lot.
On a personal note I have a university education and have and do earn far less than friends who don't, and yet I need a degree to do what I do.

Your just saying 'tax people more', which its not my politics and I dont get it, you suggest that you are not as well paid as your mates so I am guessing when you say 'tax more' you mean tax your mates more and leave me alone, it is the normal mantra of the left.

 

[Creaky]

Either way, you have said that there are real savings and thats key, the rest of the debate, for me anyway seems a quite reasonable return from those accessing the extra education rather than spreading it throughout the population where most do not or can not access it.

So a treasury saving of £1,200 per student justifies landing that student with a bill for £30,000 - I guess that you'd have no objection to being charged say £30 for a library card so long as a saving of £1 was made. In any case the study I linked to earlier estimates that student fees need only be increaed by a further £500 per year for any savings at all to be wiped out. It is the law of diminishing returns in force.

 

[BigGully]

So a treasury saving of £1,200 per student justifies landing that student with a bill for £30,000 - I guess that you'd have no objection to being charged say £30 for a library card so long as a saving of £1 was made. In any case the study I linked to earlier estimates that student fees need only be increaed by a further £500 per year for any savings at all to be wiped out. It is the law of diminishing returns in force.

This isnt make believe £ notes we are discussing here, there is a student being taught in all of this and an advantage being gained, I cannot comment on your figures but each political party seems to have stuck with it.

Generally people that ignore savings whilst usually recommending just more spending will always find figures that somehow diminishes the savings, its their default position.

 

[BigGully]

No I am not. You said the repayment for student loans is affordable. So, if it is affordable why not apply it to everyone? You say you are against just taxing people more but are quite happy to tax university graduates, which is a bit contradictory.
And no, raising taxes is a good thing providing they are affordable and the government actually use them to improve services like public transport, schools, universities, health care etc. It is a problem when they don't. I would have no problem having less disposable income if things like public transport were better and cheaper and health care was better and education was better and pensions were better and houses were actually affordable.

I have said it is affordable and that in principle it seems reasonable that those that directly benefit from that education should pay for it.

In a sense I agree that I think that the taxation system should replicate that, but where our views diverge is when you quite obviously have some inclination to tax, at some point even you would need to accept that a particular service need to find another way to improve other than give it money, the taxpayer just would like to keep some of their money to do what they want when they want.

Ultimately you will get to a point when you have squeezed as much as you can out of workers and still yet the services (Unions) would always have a claim to more money to 'improve' even more.

At some point you either run out of money or just accept that those services will just need to work within a more affordable or realigned budget, so if your not careful you end up at a later stage doing precisely what the Tories will do earlier

 

[BigGully]

But, again, EVERYONE benefits from education.

Everyone benefits from everything to a point, look we are going round in circles here.

Pay for your degree earn your extra salary, increase your chances of having a fulfilling career, whether it is Science based or Arts based good luck to you and we will where appropriate cover certain costs whilst you study but beyond that you will need to pay back 9% of each £ over £21 000, nothing if below.

It seems pretty reasonable to me even though my wife and eldest Son have both been to University and are liable for this repayment model.

 

[Creaky]

Everyone benefits from everything to a point, look we are going round in circles here.

Pay for your degree earn your extra salary, increase your chances of having a fulfilling career, whether it is Science based or Arts based good luck to you and we will where appropriate cover certain costs whilst you study but beyond that you will need to pay back 9% of each £ over £21 000, nothing if below.

It seems pretty reasonable to me even though my wife and eldest Son have both been to University and are liable for this repayment model.

Why does everyone take it as Gospel that a degree will on average mean you will earn more - there is simply no evidence for such an assumption.

I would lay odds that if a survey of those who were pupils back in the 60s was taken that those who passed the 11+ earn more on average than those who failed.

Those who have the academic ability and intelligence level to pass exams are just more likely to have a more rewarding career - whether they attended a grammar school or university or not.

 

[BigGully]

Why does everyone take it as Gospel that a degree will on average mean you will earn more - there is simply no evidence for such an assumption.

I would lay odds that if a survey of those who were pupils back in the 60s was taken that those who passed the 11+ earn more on average than those who failed.

Those who have the academic ability and intelligence level to pass exams are just more likely to have a more rewarding career - whether they attended a grammar school or university or not.

Well without actually achieving a recognised qualification it would be difficult to judge, you might just lump in those that are successful assuming they are academically bright when they might not be.

Personally I dont think University is necessarily the best pathway, in some instances it is necessary for some careers, for others it offers just another advantage on their CV, I wholly accept that you can become just as successful without a degree and no doubt some progression can be had within companies ahead of those studying, but overall I think the financial advantage exists.

This is taken from the Guardian, seems reasonable:

The value of a degree has been eroded as the proportion of the population with a university education has doubled, according to a new analysis.

But the figures show that graduates still attract a hefty salary premium compared to workers whose education ended at 16. Graduate employees earn 85% more than those who left school after GCSEs, compared with 95% more in 1993, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Over the same period, the percentage of the UK population with a degree has more than doubled from 12% in 1993 to 25% last year.

 

[jimbob5]

It is free effectively isn't it? The only people who have to pay for it will be those who are wealthy enough not to notice it in years to come.

 

[jimbob5]

What like those barely above the pay back threshold who do well just to pay back the interest?

Interest? I did not think there was any.

 

[jimbob5]

LOL.
http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/portal/page?_pageid=93,6678642&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

seriously

 

[Hampster Gull]

yes, good call (although an arguement for tose with wealth to pay). Germany runs a good ship. It pays its way in the world by exporting more than it imports (although it does ignore that its ultimately a zero sum game and that its debts were in part written off by others in its time of need). It also runs a balanced budget, making sure it doesnt pass excessive debts onto its kids. This means it has the scope to do things like this. fair dues.