Promises promises

[ahinton]

I was being ironic, amsy. My point being, in answer to the claim that the estimated large default rate would mean the taxpayer would have to foot the bill, who do you want to foot the bill for higher education if not the taxpayer? France? And if the default rate is substantial, isn't that because it was negotiated that graduates who remained relatively low earners would eventually have their 'debt' written off?

In fact, isn't the new system a cross between a progressive graduate tax (the more you're earning, the more you pay, regardless of how much you owe - until the debt is repaid) and a hypothecated tax for higher education, paid for out of general taxation?

ahinton?

The best answer that I think that I could give is as expressed in Richard Barrett's #66.

[french frank]

The best answer that I think that I could give is as expressed in Richard Barrett's #66.

That's a bit disappointing since you're the tax expert and Richard wasn't responding to my point at all - though I was responding to his.

[ahinton]

That's a bit disappointing since you're the tax expert

Appointed by whom? I assure you that I'm nothing of the kind![/QUOTE]

[french frank]

Appointed by whom? I assure you that I'm nothing of the kind!

Perhaps I should have said 'tax expert' - the one who seems much exercised by tax matters. But I'm not a tax expert either: it doesn't stop me - as a taxpayer - having some knowledge of the system. And 'disappointing' in that you referred me to an answer by Richard which bore no relation to the point I was trying to persuade you to comment on.

http://www.savethestudent.org/student-finance/9-myths-about-tuition-fees-2012.html

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes

http://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/media/456064/myths___facts_fact_sheet_1314_d_b.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/9-common-myths-about-your-student-loan-8794151.html

It's not a question of hating the Tories, it's a question of regarding what they do as exemplifying government by the rich and for the rich, and a callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society.

That is merely an elaboration of the shorthand of 'hating the Tories'. And why I 'hate the Tories'. And, although I may be completely wrong, it seems to me that that's why sections of the wide political constituency are so angry over the concept of coalition with them. Tuition fees are the flogged horse.

But I leave it to others outside the opposing cohorts to evaluate the arguments.

[ahinton]

Perhaps I should have said 'tax expert' - the one who seems much exercised by tax matters. But I'm not a tax expert either: it doesn't stop me - as a taxpayer - having some knowledge of the system. And 'disappointing' in that you referred me to an answer by Richard which bore no relation to the point I was trying to persuade you to comment on.

Well, I'm sorry to have so disappointed you but is the very fact that I am emphatically NOT a tax expert - or even a 'tax expert', for that matter - that I did not feel qualified to answer you on this; I imagine that most of us are "exercised" by certain tax matters at one time or another but that fact does not of itself make any of us tax experts, or even 'tax experts'.

That said, the higher tuition fees go and the more widely they are charged, the harder it will become for ever more people to take full advantgage of a university education and the worse off the nation will become as a consequence.

[Richard Barrett]

But you can't have it both ways: either the money is not invested in the universities, or the taxpayer forks out, and/or the graduate, in defined circumstances, forks out.

My point was that the loan system will end up costing more for everyone further on down the line.

[Richard Barrett]

That is merely an elaboration of the shorthand of 'hating the Tories'.

No it isn't. I was leaving out the word "hate", as something inappropriately personal which furthermore has a tendency to cloud the reason.

[Flosshilde]

he and his colleagues might have expected rather more credit for the welcome and long-overdue tax assistance for the low-paid as well!

The changes to income/tax - including raising the personal allownce - will benefit people/on higher incomes than it will people on lower.

http://leftfootforward.org/2013/03/the-10000-personal-tax-allowance-anything-but-progressive/

[P. G. Tipps]

The changes to income/tax - including raising the personal allownce - will benefit people/on higher incomes than it will people on lower.
http://leftfootforward.org/2013/03/t...t-progressive/

Well, er, yes, it benefits everyone who pays tax but surely in percentage terms of saving it must vastly favour the lower paid, and takes more people out of tax altogether?

To criticise the move because it doesn't benefit those right at the bottom who already pay no tax is ridiculous.

The alternative of simply reducing income tax rates would mean the higher the pay the greater the benefit which would be socially unjust especially in the present economic climate?

[teamsaint]

One problem with the student loan system, as opposed to say, a graduate tax, is that the debt is a personal one. The system may look more lenient on graduates than the old loan system, but rules can change, as those involved with personal pensions will testify.
Kids highly indebted aged 21, with perhaps not even a degree to show for it, is a state off affairs that suits the state and employers, and not the individual.

Re raising tax thresholds,these no doubt feel good for those on modest incomes,and actually I think thus far have had something to be said for them, but it is in fact a regressive measure, dressed up to look beneficial for the less well off.

[french frank]

My point was that the loan system will end up costing more for everyone further on down the line.

But the system itself is a modification of the scheme which Labour brought in, plus a watered down version of what the Browne review would be proposing. It seems that the very measures which were being introduced to make payment less tough for students are now being claimed will 'cost more'.

And it hasn't been commented on that since Labour MPs/candidates did not sign the student pledge, they were therefore not committed to keeping the tuition fees down or introducing a fairer system. Thus, the publication of the Browne review having been delayed until autumn 2010, they went into the election with no commitment of any kind, in spite of having commissioned the review to look into how higher education would be funded.

Further, in the story you quote:

"The Public Accounts Committee says that since student loans were introduced in 1990, there has been "no reliable model for forecasting how much will be repaid to the Exchequer". So Labour didn't crack that one either.

'"The Student Loans Company has not put enough energy into identifying those borrowers who should be making repayments but have slipped out of contact," Ms Hodge said.' Isn't that a collecting issue - the inefficiency of the SLC - rather than an indictment of the policy?

'"Amazingly," she said, "we may well end up with the taxpayer footing a larger bill for students' education than before students had to pay £9,000 a year fees. It is time for a rethink."' Point of information ( = I don't know the answer), where do the proceeds of those higher costs end up?

Add: 'We may well' is not the same as 'We shall/will...'

[Richard Barrett]

To criticise the move because it doesn't benefit those right at the bottom who already pay no tax is ridiculous

No it isn't, because these are precisely the people who most need economic assistance from the government, and under this scheme they don't receive any more assistance, whereas people on higher incomes do.

[Richard Barrett]

But the system itself is a modification of the scheme which Labour brought in

Please don't confuse me with a supporter of or apologist for Labour! Where do the proceeds of those higher costs end up? At a guess, in the pockets of rich people. I would have to do some digging around to find out the exact mechanism for this, but if it weren't the case I should be very surprised indeed...

[Richard Barrett]

Another issue connected with the raising of tuition fees to its current level is that it creates a situation where the student becomes someone who is paying for an expensive product rather than someone who is at university to learn, with all the implications this has for the way things are taught, the way courses are organised, the expectations of the students (ie that they'll "get their money's worth" and pass their degree), and so on, as I'm sure has been discussed here often before. This was one of my prime considerations in leaving the British higher education profession (though I hadn't been in it for very long).

[ahinton]

Another issue connected with the raising of tuition fees to its current level is that it creates a situation where the student becomes someone who is paying for an expensive product rather than someone who is at university to learn, with all the implications this has for the way things are taught, the way courses are organised, the expectations of the students (ie that they'll "get their money's worth" and pass their degree), and so on, as I'm sure has been discussed here often before.

Absolutely correct.