Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Gus Baker

GET UPDATES FROM Gus Baker
 

Why the Time is Right for a Graduate Tax

Posted: 24/04/2012 00:00

The Coalition government has done something special with Higher Education. With most reforms, there are clear winners and losers. But with £9,000 fees and the disastrous deregulation of student numbers forced on Higher Education Institutions, there are only losers. It's time to look for a new system to fund our universities. A graduate tax is the only viable option.

Under the current fees regime, students lose - being condemned to debt until their 50s and paying more for less in return. Universities lose - with the middle and lower end of the sector suffering decreasing student numbers and looking at large cuts to services as a result. The Treasury loses - with an unexpected £13bn added to public sector net debt because of David Willetts' miscalculation that universities charging above £6,000 would be the "exception", and the government's need to fund soaring cost of degrees.

A graduate tax would solve the above problems and more. By asking graduates to contribute a tiny sum of their income, directly proportional to their earnings, to a reserved fund for a fixed time period, the government could create a secure, sustainable and affordable way of funding some of the world's best universities. Instead of a flawed market dictating which degrees cost what, all Higher Education would be free at the point of delivery, with students who drop out or end up on an unsuitable course able to find something that works for them better instead of being saddled with even bigger debts. Instead of those on extremely high incomes being able to buy their way out of the system and avoid interest rates on repayments - those who benefit the most from higher education would pay the most.

A graduate tax would do away with variably priced degrees, ending the insanity of asking 17-year-olds to make life changing decisions based on the differing sticker prices of courses, which bear little resemblance to the amounts repaid in the end. How can anyone be expected to calculate whether a Media Studies BA from the University of West London at £7,640 is better value than one from the University of Brighton at £9,000?

Furthermore, by ring-fencing spending on Higher Education in a reserved trust, universities would be insulated from the vandalism that the Coalition Government is currently inflicting on the public sector. The money paid in by graduates would be free from political control, ending the destabilising effects of turning higher education into a political football that is being used to score repeated own goals.

The arguments against a graduate tax are weak at best. Those who argue that it would require a significant short term outlay of public funds before it received any returns fail to note that the same is true with the current system. The Treasury will not see any of the fee income for the 2012/3 cohort of students until 2016/7 at the earliest. Those who say that graduates will move abroad to avoid a tiny percentage of their income being deducted in taxation fail to note the same danger within the current system as it is. Those who argue the system would be too complex clearly don't understand the sheer extent of the confusion caused by repayment mechanisms that are not related to the advertised costs of degrees.

If we are going to get a fairer system of funding, big decisions need to be made now. On Tuesday, NUS National Conference will vote on whether to continue supporting a graduate tax, or plump for an unfunded system of "free education", sidelining the organisation from serious debate. The leadership of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats soon need to work out what system they will be proposing at the next general election. Even the Conservative Party will find it difficult to justify a status quo where students lose and the deficit gets bigger.

The government simply cannot afford to continue adding billions of pounds each year to the national debt to fund an unpopular and unfair system of tuition fees. We can either choose an American system of funding, where college debt is about to reach one trillion dollars and families are struggling to cope with costs that are rising at twice the rate of inflation. Or we can choose a system where contributions are determined by earnings, and young people aren't asked to make huge financial gambles when choosing degrees with their own and taxpayers money. David Willetts, Secretary of State for Higher Education, is nicknamed "two brains". Even for him, a graduate tax should be a no-brainer.

 

Follow Gus Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gusbbaker

FOLLOW UK STUDENTS
The Coalition government has done something special with Higher Education. With most reforms, there are clear winners and losers. But with £9,000 fees and the disastrous deregulation of student numbe...
The Coalition government has done something special with Higher Education. With most reforms, there are clear winners and losers. But with £9,000 fees and the disastrous deregulation of student numbe...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
17:39 on 17/05/2012
Am I missing something? Just change the term "student loan" to "graduate tax" and thats pretty much the current system: payment of a percentage of the graduate's income, over a fairly reasonable limit, with cut off provisions.
16:19 on 06/05/2012
Utterly incoherent.

Why won't the treasury "see any of the fee income for the 2012/3 cohort of students until 2016/7 at the earliest"? Oh yes, because it's not an upfront fee, it's a tax on graduates, just confusingly called a tuition fee because the Tory back benches wouldn't stomach the word "tax".

Gus endorses the current system, basically, and offers a criticism of it which applies equally to his virtually identical graduate tax. You can't predict how much you will pay back under the Coalition's funding system because it's essentially a graduate tax: on the other hand, Gus' idea for a graduate tax would... er.... make it impossible to predict how much you would pay back. The £9k / £7.5k thing now tells you two things: how much you'll pay if you end up in a very well paid job for many years; and how welcoming to poorer students your prospective uni has decided to be. Cheap courses will ironically be less accessible to people from poorer backgrounds.

The Liberals have already delivered a graduate tax as part of the Coalition. But the NUS is in desparate denial because the Labour-and-fellow-traveller clique in power in NUS dare not admit that they got a better deal out of the coalition than the £15,000-a-year fees Labour proposed.
11:54 on 25/04/2012
Further education should add to the abilities of those taking part. Thier higher income or greater contribution to society would follow and result in higher tax income.
If this isn't sufficient then we are over-educating people and should cut back. We need to recognise that non-graduates are not second class citizens but often contribute more than graaduates with their better life skills and drive to succeed.
After all life is changing so much that we must all continue to learn and re-learn throughout our lives and the higher eductaion part is a one off small contribution, necessary for a few leading edge scientists and intellectuals but not to 50% of the population.
I am a grduate myself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakyracir
My spaniel is watching you
14:58 on 24/04/2012
This is a fundamentally flawed and unfair idea. The whole of society should pay for higher education, as the whole of society benefits. Deciding how much people pay should be based purely on income, since many of the very wealthiest don't have school qualifications, let alone degrees. They still need doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers and scientists. We all do, so we all need to pay for it. There are far too many mickey mouse degrees and oversubscribed "easy" courses out there now - properly directed government funding could redress that balance in favour of the skills we actually need in the UK.
13:52 on 24/04/2012
Higher Education should be free why should people who want improve there prospects and when working will actually pay a higher rate of tax, be debt ridden when others can be unemployed for years and still get a 5% increase in benefits. Have seen the benefits bill, a lot of these people have no intention of making a contribution to the country yet we are happy to pay then !
07:45 on 24/04/2012
The system that the coalition have brought in could simply be renamed a graduate tax with no changes to any of its details. So I fail to see what your point is, unless you're calling for retroactive taxation of those who graduated decades ago, which would of course be inequitable.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Tom DeFraine
23:57 on 23/04/2012
This is a really good post man - I'm inclined to agree!