Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Graduate tax



Opposing a major increase in tuition fees has given Ed Miliband the chance to approach ‘betrayed’ LibDems with a proposed graduate tax. And all would-be under-graduates, of course. Mustn't forget to nominate the real target.

The traditional posturing in politics would predict that the furore 'created' by the entire student fee/loan issue would ultimately lead to the solution by abandoning the proposed fee elevation that caused it, but reduce it to something still more than at present. The general opinion could then be expected to be one of thanks for being so generous in reducing the level of fees, yet still 'ramping' it up considerably. Go too far, then retreat, but end up further forward than the starting position.

  • Same principle of asking more for something you wish to sell then allowing yourself to be knocked downwards in the asking price, yet then achieving the (lower) price that you actually wanted in the first place. Everyone then feels a winner, but is actually a loser. It's all illusion. Smoke and mirrors: 'spin'.
A very simple (but, as usual, highly effective since everyone will fall for it) strategy. Even (free-education) Dr. Vince Cable could exit the stench smelling of roses. Wonderful stuff. Imagine: Cable gullible enough to fall for any power sharing ploy.

And everyone will now be...

happy, happy, happy!!!

It really must be Christmas!!!
  • A graduate tax was mooted before the introduction of top-up fees in the United Kingdom but was ultimately rejected.[4] A system of graduate tax was seriously considered as part of the Browne Review[5] although Vince Cable: “No decisions have been made" and on 15th July, 2010, implied he was "interested in looking at the feasibility of changing the system of financing student tuition so that the repayment mechanism is variable graduate contributions tied to earnings".
Future-proofed and self-sustaining DA
    • Whatever the outcome of any system, it must be seen to be equally distributed across all the UK-territories, however unfair.
    Finance for full-time EU students

    Potentially 'honourable' individuals are receiving their baptism of fire into the nasty world of real 'politics'. The general outcome of Lord Browne’s recommendations is known and has caused considerable disquiet on government benches. The government could lose the vote if enough LibDem MPs revolt (even Dr. Vince Cable may abstain), prejudicing the future of a longer-term coalition government. It's notable that Cameron's government (as pm) has dumped the hot potato of student loans and any blame for the creation of an elitist society onto the LibDem part. The Tory part can walk away relatively untarnished. This can be construed as the early attempts to get rid of the LibDems. This is, after all, Cable's doing. He is responsible.

    Coalition government ->

    Tory government


    !!! DA

    This is politics.

    Successful business people, especially those like Lord Browne elevated to the 'upper house' only seem to 'understand' making money.

    Tuition fees are considered to not mirror the American system of an ‘upfront’ charge. The government pays the upfront cost, while the student repays the loan over 25 years and according to their ability to pay. The government starts the debt and immediately passes responsibility over to the student. It creates for itself the gains from interest. The contract is between the student and the government agency created to deal with student finance. The university simply collects its fees ‘upfront’ and then appears to have nothing to do with the loan, even though it introduced the need for the loan in the first place.

    • There will apparently be at least two rates of interest (implies 3 or 4 or...). The lowest of around (allegedly) 0% will be for those of modest means. This implies a means test. It is very vague and outlines a principle only.
    • Government and principles? How are those in receipt of benefits being means tested? Exercise maximum caution. DA
    Increased tuition fees theoretically will only disadvantage the ‘affluent’ since only they will pay it. Theoretically. The ‘affluent’ are possibly those who do not need funding. Again, insufficient information can only create doubt. The affluent can (possibly) already afford to go to university. Without the requirement of a loan. After living with (chained to) a debt for up to 25 years, the interest will continue… to increase the yield from the forced acceptance of the debt. Create high fees and provide a system of loans.

    Create the problem then
    provide the solution

    • Having a debt ‘written-off’ only implies a clean record, but there must be (future, well-hidden) consequences?
    • Voluntary bankruptcy cannot come without penalties?
    • The debt is surely never ‘written-off’ or no-one would ever have debt again!!!
      • Unless a bank is involved as the recipient of a 'taxpayer-donated' loan, DA.
    • The test must surely come when a future loan or mortgage is needed?
    • Any future borrowing must be compromised?
    • The invisible and tainted 'debtor' that has no 'official' debt?
    Some institutions will charge more for their courses than others, creating an elitist intake (aka privilege). It raises the standing of the institution and in so doing enables it to escalate its course/tuition fees: the more expensive, the better it must be, but without any supportive evidence. Living costs will doubtless increase as the student now has more to lose (and protect the debt, DA) through increased ‘upfront’ expenses. Bursaries are one suggestion to smooth the path... to the university and for the university. Bursaries are grants awarded by the university to assist paying fees to attend that university. These must somehow be financed, possibly by raising the overall tuition fee level for everyone else. In principle it's a self-sustaining system.

    A danger with such a system is similar in principle to children benefiting from free school meals. There is an associated stigma, since it implies being one of the 'poor', but since there are now so many 'poor' (educated to 'A'-level and technically pre-under graduate level) then it's less visible (DA).

    Whether it’s just a perception or not.

    posted by Louis Brothnias @ 4:03 am