@rikofold you make some interesting points. Before addressing, let's take this back to the broader debate: namely Clegg, austerity, the last seven years together with what's next. This piece by Stiglitz during the last election appears apposite. Taxing the richest and corporations at a fair level is for their own sake as well as to invest in infrastructure, training, education and all the other good things provided by government for the benefit of wider society.
Financialisation and shoe box accounting, aka people paying their own way is the neoliberal doctrine. That is one choice at the next election and May's manifesto highlighted her approach to social care and the "dementia tax" - that went well! And that appears your preference for tuition fees. Ultimately tuition fee loans for undergraduates are just an Enron style off balance sheet scheme - sooner or later a big portion is written off.
For sure Blair and Labour pushed participation rates way up. I'm no expert on funding models across the G20 but the clear idea was to raise the UK into the top 10-15. How that's funded is a different discussion and the coalition tripling tuition fees was just one option - the neoliberal choice.
Corporation and other tax receipts have indeed increased since the financial crash and the coalition taking over in 2010. Why? Some might call the phenomenon "counter-intuitive" but that explanation appears to be an over simplification as we can see below: - The two years of the crash saw a 10% reduction in tax revenues - that's what caused the deficit as opposed to anything tied to the previous government - Since then, company profitability is up by almost 50% as we emerged from the biggest crash in living memory - banks have recovered plus there are restrictions on "carried forward losses". - The fall in sterling has increased the value and associated tax on overseas earnings. - The kick in the tail is that lower tax rates mean lower tax deductions for investment which has declined - nice one! - Finally, the western world is gradually catching up with tax avoidance techniques including cross border transfer pricing. - VAT receipts have gone up significantly. 20% on a tax paid by all - efficient collection but highly regressive - Payroll taxes on the top 20% have also increased but that's another thread really... - and capital taxes are up as more and more deals are done in an environment with near zero interest rates.
The real question is that if tax receipts are up, why the hell are many still talking about austerity and cutting provision of services and benefits?
Once again, the electorate will have a binary choice at the next election. More neoliberalism or something different - thanks Nick
If tuition fees had been framed (by all parties) as universities being a public service that needs to be paid for, and then we can get into the debate about worth and value for money and raising the funds from society in general, like other public services, the issue would have been more palatable for me, even leaving aside the broken promises and changing the rules once folk are suckered in. However the framing of education as a route to higher earnings to justify the fees has annoyed me a lot. It may be that statistics show that generally graduates are higher earners, but to me that is a by-product of the education not the purpose of it, and the fee debate has skewered the purpose of education to be about vocation, whereas I see the purpose of education quite differently.
Nick Clegg makes election videos for the Lib Dems stating how bad it is that governments break their promises. Then hypocritically breaks his own promise not to raise VAT (up from 17.5 to 20%) by supporting the tories. In his Sheffield political base he promised not to raise tuition fees. This helped him not only to regain his Sheffield seat by attracting the student vote but then become Deputy Prime Minister. I wonder what he felt like when the tories allowed tuition fees to escalate to £9k? He didn't say, "I don't support this" at the time. In his defence he was only a pawn in the tory game but us voters hate it when politicians break their promises. So not only did he manage to hold his seat and taste government for four years, he now gets a knighthood! People will argue that he helped to modify conservative policy and maybe he did but the fact remains he did very well out of making promises he probably knew he could not keep. Now Corbyn somehow has to avoid falling into the same trap, having promised the moon to all sorts of factions. I think he is a man of principle but people will soon turn on him if he lets his voters down (assuming he does get into power.)
Do you think that being leader of a minority political being offered the position of Deputy Prime Minister is the same as a football manager, of an insignificant football club, refusing to allow his chairman to make signings?
If so we cannot continue this discussion as you clearly have different understanding of the significance of the offer made to Clegg than I have.
I would think that a closer comparison would be offering a fifteen stone chap from the pub the chance to play centre forward for Man Utd in the Champions League Cup Final just as long as he agreed to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to take the penalties!
If tuition fees had been framed (by all parties) as universities being a public service that needs to be paid for, and then we can get into the debate about worth and value for money and raising the funds from society in general, like other public services, the issue would have been more palatable for me, even leaving aside the broken promises and changing the rules once folk are suckered in. However the framing of education as a route to higher earnings to justify the fees has annoyed me a lot. It may be that statistics show that generally graduates are higher earners, but to me that is a by-product of the education not the purpose of it, and the fee debate has skewered the purpose of education to be about vocation, whereas I see the purpose of education quite differently.
In reality if you don’t earn more money as a result of your degree you don’t pay the loans back. If you do earn more money then, maybe, you should pay the money back.
If you go to University and fail to achieve a good salary you can, potentially, pay none of it back.
If tuition fees had been framed (by all parties) as universities being a public service that needs to be paid for, and then we can get into the debate about worth and value for money and raising the funds from society in general, like other public services, the issue would have been more palatable for me, even leaving aside the broken promises and changing the rules once folk are suckered in. However the framing of education as a route to higher earnings to justify the fees has annoyed me a lot. It may be that statistics show that generally graduates are higher earners, but to me that is a by-product of the education not the purpose of it, and the fee debate has skewered the purpose of education to be about vocation, whereas I see the purpose of education quite differently.
In reality if you don’t earn more money as a result of your degree you don’t pay the loans back. If you do earn more money then, maybe, you should pay the money back.
If you go to University and fail to achieve a good salary you can, potentially, pay none of it back.
Alternatively you may earn money but not as a direct result of your degree, possibly in a different field altogether, or because of some kind of latent advantage or natural 'talent'. There doesn't have to be a direct link at all, a supermodel with a first class degree in Geology can earn money without that particular degree, a graduate in Philosophy might become a pig farmer, or a Chemistry master might write a successful song and earn from that. My case is that the education per se may well have developed the person in ways that is hard to measure in monetary terms, indeed a degree is not necessarily a barrier to a life on state benefits either. My overall discomfort is the crude form in which education is often linked by some to the value of education in money terms, when I believe the benefit of general education to the generality of society is more subtle and nuanced.
@rikofold you make some interesting points. Before addressing, let's take this back to the broader debate: namely Clegg, austerity, the last seven years together with what's next. This piece by Stiglitz during the last election appears apposite. Taxing the richest and corporations at a fair level is for their own sake as well as to invest in infrastructure, training, education and all the other good things provided by government for the benefit of wider society.
Financialisation and shoe box accounting, aka people paying their own way is the neoliberal doctrine. That is one choice at the next election and May's manifesto highlighted her approach to social care and the "dementia tax" - that went well! And that appears your preference for tuition fees. Ultimately tuition fee loans for undergraduates are just an Enron style off balance sheet scheme - sooner or later a big portion is written off.
For sure Blair and Labour pushed participation rates way up. I'm no expert on funding models across the G20 but the clear idea was to raise the UK into the top 10-15. How that's funded is a different discussion and the coalition tripling tuition fees was just one option - the neoliberal choice.
Corporation and other tax receipts have indeed increased since the financial crash and the coalition taking over in 2010. Why? Some might call the phenomenon "counter-intuitive" but that explanation appears to be an over simplification as we can see below: - The two years of the crash saw a 10% reduction in tax revenues - that's what caused the deficit as opposed to anything tied to the previous government - Since then, company profitability is up by almost 50% as we emerged from the biggest crash in living memory - banks have recovered plus there are restrictions on "carried forward losses". - The fall in sterling has increased the value and associated tax on overseas earnings. - The kick in the tail is that lower tax rates mean lower tax deductions for investment which has declined - nice one! - Finally, the western world is gradually catching up with tax avoidance techniques including cross border transfer pricing. - VAT receipts have gone up significantly. 20% on a tax paid by all - efficient collection but highly regressive - Payroll taxes on the top 20% have also increased but that's another thread really... - and capital taxes are up as more and more deals are done in an environment with near zero interest rates.
The real question is that if tax receipts are up, why the hell are many still talking about austerity and cutting provision of services and benefits?
Once again, the electorate will have a binary choice at the next election. More neoliberalism or something different - thanks Nick
Good stuff. Couple of notes.
'Paying your own way' and 'those advantaged financially by their education paying its costs' is a false equivalence. I do believe society should look after those less well off or 'inhibited' in whatever way and that taxes should be so balanced that they balance reward for good stewardship with responsibility to ensure no member 'suffers' the burden more than another (a la the 'widow's mites'). I therefore think it quite reasonable that graduates contribute to their higher education. The debate for me is around how much that should be, but the current system of repayment is a good one in my view. As I've said, it amounts to a finite graduate tax.
I would like to see grants restored to support living costs for those who are less able to sustain them, as in my day. (I didn't get a grant, by the way).
I'm not commenting on tax receipts across the board, but I do know that the reduction to 45p resulted in higher tax receipts in that bracket. I imagine a big driver in this is a reduction in avoidance. Historically, higher rates really don't produce higher receipts, but whilst someone on £150k is clearly well-off, there are plenty of people with considerably more wealth contributing significantly less. And it doesn't help that we keep letting the big companies off their bills.
I think you're being generous to Nick Clegg in terms of the influence you attribute to him. His sin, realistically, was to support a Government policy whilst in coalition. It wasn't his policy, and he was the makeweight in a Tory government, but he was shafted by Cameron and the party is still suffering today. I suspect if he and his party came into government with those 5 years behind them you'd see a very different and much more effective LibDem party.
If your auntie had bollocks and all that though...
If tuition fees had been framed (by all parties) as universities being a public service that needs to be paid for, and then we can get into the debate about worth and value for money and raising the funds from society in general, like other public services, the issue would have been more palatable for me, even leaving aside the broken promises and changing the rules once folk are suckered in. However the framing of education as a route to higher earnings to justify the fees has annoyed me a lot. It may be that statistics show that generally graduates are higher earners, but to me that is a by-product of the education not the purpose of it, and the fee debate has skewered the purpose of education to be about vocation, whereas I see the purpose of education quite differently.
In reality if you don’t earn more money as a result of your degree you don’t pay the loans back. If you do earn more money then, maybe, you should pay the money back.
If you go to University and fail to achieve a good salary you can, potentially, pay none of it back.
Alternatively you may earn money but not as a direct result of your degree, possibly in a different field altogether, or because of some kind of latent advantage or natural 'talent'. There doesn't have to be a direct link at all, a supermodel with a first class degree in Geology can earn money without that particular degree, a graduate in Philosophy might become a pig farmer, or a Chemistry master might write a successful song and earn from that. My case is that the education per se may well have developed the person in ways that is hard to measure in monetary terms, indeed a degree is not necessarily a barrier to a life on state benefits either. My overall discomfort is the crude form in which education is often linked by some to the value of education in money terms, when I believe the benefit of general education to the generality of society is more subtle and nuanced.
I have to confess I’ve had a few drinks now so I might be talking rubbish by this point, more than normal, but surely it doesn’t matter how the money comes if someone that benefited from a degree earns a lot of money it is not unreasonable for them to pay a contribution towards the University’s costs and the money they were lent to pay for rent etc, while they were not working and studying?
In an ideal word everyone would be in a position to pay for their University education. That way the costs of the Universitrs could be channelled into the NHS, or Social Services or be used to give benefits to the less well off in society.
All I was trying to say is that, like all taxes, those that can pay should and those can’t shouldn’t have to and the current system, for all it’s faults, does seem to work that way.
I may have misunderstood how the scheme works but that’s the impression that I get.
I can see your argument but may I extend it a little by suggesting that what you say could be extended to all schooling at any age. If that isn't to be the case, then within the reasons why not are some of the arguments for how society needs an educated population.
"What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance."
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
I personally believe you should concentrate on taxing wealth not income.
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
I am sorry but Clegg supported cuts in benefits and govt spending that have a greater impact on the less well off while waving through a tax reduction for the well off - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal
He also supported tightening the fiscal stance while the economy was in the doldrums - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal - at least since Keynes.
The Govt of which Clegg was deputy leader presided over one of the sharpest increases in inequality of recent times - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal.
As for a wealth tax perhaps you need a lot more thought - my guess is that it is rather easier for the wealthy to evade and avoid than income tax - income has a source that is often easier to identify than financial assets that are rather mobile in this day and age.
Did he really? I doubt it. I think he was making as many policy decisions in the coalition Government as a two year old does in a family home.
I’m quite convinced that he got the title of Deputy Leader, and a couple of press conferences that he was allowed to speak at with Cameron then he was told to f**k off and do as he was told, or f**k off and get out of Govenrment.
Six months after the General election in 2010 it was fairly clear that another election would wipe out the Liberals, almost completely, and would probably have retained a Conservative Government. In any event Clegg couldn’t risk it so he bowed his head and did as he was told.
A man with a backbone, and one deserving of a knighthood would have objected to be treated in such a fashion - that he didn't speaks volumes for him I'm afraid. RD likes yes men as well and look where that has got Charlton - Chrissy Powell and Curbs are not yes men and are far more worthy recipients of a knighthood.
I feel as though we have gone off topic here. Without wishing to extend this discussion too much it has been argued that Curbs’ backbone and his actions at West Ham finished his career and I don’t think you can compare Cameron to Roland. You also have to accept that Roland is fantastically successful in business insisting that people do as he says so you can’t automatically suggest that Charlton, which was a silly experiment can be compared to Politics.
I, also, suspect that there are many other Politicians that do as their party leader tells them to do. The issue with a Legg was that his party was so small that he was never going to be able to make policy. I’m also not convinced that his actions are those of someone without a backbone. He had very little negotiating power so decided to get something rather than nothing.
As for the recognition I’m sure it’s not for being Cameron’s lap dog and, even though I’ve not read up on it, I suspect that he has done some good things, otherwise why would he have been nominated?
Ironically I agree with a lot of what you seem to believe I just don’t think the comparisons are all that valid.
"What’s wrong with everybody benefitting from the tax free allowance."
Nothing if you don't believe that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay - a traditional Liberal belief that Clegg clearly ignored.
I personally believe you should concentrate on taxing wealth not income.
To be pragmatic if you want evoke JS Mill and levy a per capita charge on everyone then you’ll need to means test it, which costs money. If you want to levy a higher rate tax band on income taxes then you’ll need to model the numbers and see where the burden sits across the distribution and also account for the capacity at the top end to avoid/evade the burden. You could bring in a greater tax take on a lower percentage for example.
To suggest Clegg was not a Liberal is plain daft, to suggest he gave away concessions in a coalition is obvious.
Overall a simpler tax system which is not ‘progrssive’ by a redistributive definition has more value than doing nothing at all, it benefits many at the bottom end of the spectrum who need it most, and is a simple efficient tax change which people can buy into, is non controversial and is very simple and inexpensive to implement.
I am sorry but Clegg supported cuts in benefits and govt spending that have a greater impact on the less well off while waving through a tax reduction for the well off - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal
He also supported tightening the fiscal stance while the economy was in the doldrums - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal - at least since Keynes.
The Govt of which Clegg was deputy leader presided over one of the sharpest increases in inequality of recent times - that is not the behaviour of a Liberal.
As for a wealth tax perhaps you need a lot more thought - my guess is that it is rather easier for the wealthy to evade and avoid than income tax - income has a source that is often easier to identify than financial assets that are rather mobile in this day and age.
Did he really? I doubt it. I think he was making as many policy decisions in the coalition Government as a two year old does in a family home.
I’m quite convinced that he got the title of Deputy Leader, and a couple of press conferences that he was allowed to speak at with Cameron then he was told to f**k off and do as he was told, or f**k off and get out of Govenrment.
Six months after the General election in 2010 it was fairly clear that another election would wipe out the Liberals, almost completely, and would probably have retained a Conservative Government. In any event Clegg couldn’t risk it so he bowed his head and did as he was told.
A man with a backbone, and one deserving of a knighthood would have objected to be treated in such a fashion - that he didn't speaks volumes for him I'm afraid. RD likes yes men as well and look where that has got Charlton - Chrissy Powell and Curbs are not yes men and are far more worthy recipients of a knighthood.
I feel as though we have gone off topic here. Without wishing to extend this discussion too much it has been argued that Curbs’ backbone and his actions at West Ham finished his career and I don’t think you can compare Cameron to Roland. You also have to accept that Roland is fantastically successful in business insisting that people do as he says so you can’t automatically suggest that Charlton, which was a silly experiment can be compared to Politics.
I, also, suspect that there are many other Politicians that do as their party leader tells them to do. The issue with a Legg was that his party was so small that he was never going to be able to make policy. I’m also not convinced that his actions are those of someone without a backbone. He had very little negotiating power so decided to get something rather than nothing.
As for the recognition I’m sure it’s not for being Cameron’s lap dog and, even though I’ve not read up on it, I suspect that he has done some good things, otherwise why would he have been nominated?
Ironically I agree with a lot of what you seem to believe I just don’t think the comparisons are all that valid.
I believe that standing up for your principles should be a universal requirement for an honour what ever your field, as strangely enough that is what "honour" entails. I should add that on the question of reducing the deficit and austerity Clegg revealed shortly after entering the coalition that he had changed his view on this during the election campaign, even though Cable and his party carried on claiming throughout the lection campaign that the time for reducing the deficit was after the economy had started to recover. If this is not the action of a man of honour - and is fundamentally why he was never able to act as an effective counter to Cameron and Osborne.
Come on continue to debate in the way that you started ,
To liken the job of deputy PM to that of a football Mgr is just madness
Which of course I didn't - I do however believe that "honour" has certain common characteristics regardless of the field you work in - things like decency, honesty, standing up for your principles.
I should, probably, point out sm that I have always thought the Honours was crooked. There are many jobs that seem to come with an honour by default and way too many Senior Politicians seem to get one for, basically, doing their job - one that is well paid when you take into account all the expenses benefits that were asserted for decades.
The recent revelations (allegations) that David Beckham is getting frustrated that all his charitable donations (that are a very small fraction of his entire wealth) are not getting him a Knighthood tell me everything I need to know about the system.
A relative of mine has been involved in the system (the awarding of the Honours) on the past and if I shared any of the stories I’ve heard you would not be all that bothered if Clegg gets one or not - I’m certainly not.
I hope all those slamming Clegg for tuition fees realise that Corbyn promises to scrap tuition fees too. Would never happen of course, but was a major driver behind the young vote. Would he be held to the same scrutiny?
I hope all those slamming Clegg for tuition fees realise that Corbyn promises to scrap tuition fees too. Would never happen of course, but was a major driver behind the young vote. Would he be held to the same scrutiny?
Why wouldn't he be ?
For what it's worth, I think Corbyn would have scrapped tuition fees - how much it would have cost the country and whether we could afford it is a different matter.
Tuition fees will be scrapped or at least massively curtailed at some point in the near future. It's simple economics: because the economy has been stagnant for a decade at least and is likely to stay that way for another decade, the student loan package doesn't add up. As PaddyP17 points out, he'd have to earn £49K to start to pay off the capital. At present he (like most students I'd guess) is not even paying off the interest. 49K is about the point at which the top 10% of earners begins. So, 40% go to Uni, rack up say £50k debt. Assuming that they are overrepresented in the group earning £49K, that still leaves a majority of students paying only some of the interest, or none if they earn less than £21K. And a bigger and bigger hole in the govt's finances. Eventually most of it will be written off - Corbyn's "wish" to do something else is almost certainly driven by this analysis as much as it playing well to the youth vote and it could be argued that anyone defending the current system of student finance is being reckless with creating future debt for the state as most of it won't be paid off. This is purely an economic argument, leaving aside the whole debate over whether those benefiting ought to contribute, the needs of the business and services for educated workers, including historically low paid sectors, and the whole deterrent effect on bright but poor kids of that sort of debt.
I hope all those slamming Clegg for tuition fees realise that Corbyn promises to scrap tuition fees too. Would never happen of course, but was a major driver behind the young vote. Would he be held to the same scrutiny?
I've not much time for Corbyn either - but the source of his dishonour is elsewhere for the present. There are plenty of LibDems and Liberals around who do not believe that Clegg deserves to be honoured.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I believe that was Labours position to an extent, but as shadow ministers went on the radio saying they would cancel existing student debt and even some parliamentary candidates in student facing seats put this on their leaflets, they are just as duplicitous as the Lib Dem’s.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
My son has nearly 50 grand of uni debt and has worked since graduating but it continues to increase due to interest. He would need to earn 41k per year for it to start to decrease. He was in the first group of 9k fees and it was too late at the time to change plans. Clegg and his ilk are utter cnuts with no redeeming features.
I assume he didn't get a Maths degree then? 3 x £9k is £27k of Uni debt. The other 'debt' is just the cost of living in 21st Century UK (tax free as well).
'Too late' to change plans? What on earth are you on about. Could he not have decided Uni wasn't for him during freshers week?
Blame Clegg for certain things, but not the decisions made by yourself and your family.
The debt also includes the money borrowed for rent and living (something that didn't happen to my generation)
You got free rent and food?
Basically yes, subsidised by holiday work. I had no family support having been in care and in order to get a degree was totally reliant on grants.
Do you still think that's the right way to go in 21st Century UK, where University entrances places have increased by 80% in the last 30 years?
Or should our finite resources be somehow targeted where they are most needed?
On this I have a sense of overlap with you. Yes resources are finite, and the debate is often about where to deploy them. However my problem is shifting the ground dramatically and unexpectedly after explicit promises that it wouldn't happen and wrong footing people. Then a shrug of insouciance and an expectation of a knighthood follows whilst real people live with their deception. The debate about everybody going willy nilly to university is different, as is the debate about whether it is value for money.
And I'm sure Clegg would have fulfilled those promises, if he had been Prime Minister.
But he wasn't and had to make the most out of the situation he had been dealt.
And I for one believe he made the right decisions for the benefit of the Country as a whole, despite some of those being against his better judgement.
It's easy to make promises when you know you have zero % chance of being prime minister.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Just to clarify the Student Loan is 9% right? All the rest has to be paid anyway, does it not?
If it helps your argument why don’t you add VAT, Council Tax, Road Tax, TV Licence, Insurance Premium Tax and Stamp Duty? Then you can make that marginal tax rate even higher.
For what It is worth I believe the Labour position at the last election was to scrap tuition fees, but to clear the weight of debt for graduates was an aspiration for the future. I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
I’m sure you’re right about this Seth but I can’t help thinking that these are the same people that will order Champagne if it’s a free bar (or someone else is paying) but will have a larger if they have to pay for it themselves.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
Only paying back if you can afford it means a 41% marginal tax (20% income tax, 12% NI, 9% student loan) rate if you earn above £21000 - do you think that is fair compared with a 47% marginal tax rate for the richest in society?
Comments
Financialisation and shoe box accounting, aka people paying their own way is the neoliberal doctrine. That is one choice at the next election and May's manifesto highlighted her approach to social care and the "dementia tax" - that went well! And that appears your preference for tuition fees. Ultimately tuition fee loans for undergraduates are just an Enron style off balance sheet scheme - sooner or later a big portion is written off.
For sure Blair and Labour pushed participation rates way up. I'm no expert on funding models across the G20 but the clear idea was to raise the UK into the top 10-15. How that's funded is a different discussion and the coalition tripling tuition fees was just one option - the neoliberal choice.
Corporation and other tax receipts have indeed increased since the financial crash and the coalition taking over in 2010. Why? Some might call the phenomenon "counter-intuitive" but that explanation appears to be an over simplification as we can see below:
- The two years of the crash saw a 10% reduction in tax revenues - that's what caused the deficit as opposed to anything tied to the previous government
- Since then, company profitability is up by almost 50% as we emerged from the biggest crash in living memory
- banks have recovered plus there are restrictions on "carried forward losses".
- The fall in sterling has increased the value and associated tax on overseas earnings.
- The kick in the tail is that lower tax rates mean lower tax deductions for investment which has declined - nice one!
- Finally, the western world is gradually catching up with tax avoidance techniques including cross border transfer pricing.
- VAT receipts have gone up significantly. 20% on a tax paid by all - efficient collection but highly regressive
- Payroll taxes on the top 20% have also increased but that's another thread really...
- and capital taxes are up as more and more deals are done in an environment with near zero interest rates.
The real question is that if tax receipts are up, why the hell are many still talking about austerity and cutting provision of services and benefits?
Once again, the electorate will have a binary choice at the next election. More neoliberalism or something different - thanks Nick
To liken the job of deputy PM to that of a football Mgr is just madness
However the framing of education as a route to higher earnings to justify the fees has annoyed me a lot. It may be that statistics show that generally graduates are higher earners, but to me that is a by-product of the education not the purpose of it, and the fee debate has skewered the purpose of education to be about vocation, whereas I see the purpose of education quite differently.
Now Corbyn somehow has to avoid falling into the same trap, having promised the moon to all sorts of factions. I think he is a man of principle but people will soon turn on him if he lets his voters down (assuming he does get into power.)
If so we cannot continue this discussion as you clearly have different understanding of the significance of the offer made to Clegg than I have.
I would think that a closer comparison would be offering a fifteen stone chap from the pub the chance to play centre forward for Man Utd in the Champions League Cup Final just as long as he agreed to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to take the penalties!
If you go to University and fail to achieve a good salary you can, potentially, pay none of it back.
My overall discomfort is the crude form in which education is often linked by some to the value of education in money terms, when I believe the benefit of general education to the generality of society is more subtle and nuanced.
'Paying your own way' and 'those advantaged financially by their education paying its costs' is a false equivalence. I do believe society should look after those less well off or 'inhibited' in whatever way and that taxes should be so balanced that they balance reward for good stewardship with responsibility to ensure no member 'suffers' the burden more than another (a la the 'widow's mites'). I therefore think it quite reasonable that graduates contribute to their higher education. The debate for me is around how much that should be, but the current system of repayment is a good one in my view. As I've said, it amounts to a finite graduate tax.
I would like to see grants restored to support living costs for those who are less able to sustain them, as in my day. (I didn't get a grant, by the way).
I'm not commenting on tax receipts across the board, but I do know that the reduction to 45p resulted in higher tax receipts in that bracket. I imagine a big driver in this is a reduction in avoidance. Historically, higher rates really don't produce higher receipts, but whilst someone on £150k is clearly well-off, there are plenty of people with considerably more wealth contributing significantly less. And it doesn't help that we keep letting the big companies off their bills.
I think you're being generous to Nick Clegg in terms of the influence you attribute to him. His sin, realistically, was to support a Government policy whilst in coalition. It wasn't his policy, and he was the makeweight in a Tory government, but he was shafted by Cameron and the party is still suffering today. I suspect if he and his party came into government with those 5 years behind them you'd see a very different and much more effective LibDem party.
If your auntie had bollocks and all that though...
In an ideal word everyone would be in a position to pay for their University education. That way the costs of the Universitrs could be channelled into the NHS, or Social Services or be used to give benefits to the less well off in society.
All I was trying to say is that, like all taxes, those that can pay should and those can’t shouldn’t have to and the current system, for all it’s faults, does seem to work that way.
I may have misunderstood how the scheme works but that’s the impression that I get.
I, also, suspect that there are many other Politicians that do as their party leader tells them to do. The issue with a Legg was that his party was so small that he was never going to be able to make policy. I’m also not convinced that his actions are those of someone without a backbone. He had very little negotiating power so decided to get something rather than nothing.
As for the recognition I’m sure it’s not for being Cameron’s lap dog and, even though I’ve not read up on it, I suspect that he has done some good things, otherwise why would he have been nominated?
Ironically I agree with a lot of what you seem to believe I just don’t think the comparisons are all that valid.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts
The recent revelations (allegations) that David Beckham is getting frustrated that all his charitable donations (that are a very small fraction of his entire wealth) are not getting him a Knighthood tell me everything I need to know about the system.
A relative of mine has been involved in the system (the awarding of the Honours) on the past and if I shared any of the stories I’ve heard you would not be all that bothered if Clegg gets one or not - I’m certainly not.
In this instance I don’t think it’s the case but I still don’t think he deserves one
I don’t think sports stars or politicians should get them just for doing their job , what they do away from their profession is different
For what it's worth, I think Corbyn would have scrapped tuition fees - how much it would have cost the country and whether we could afford it is a different matter.
This is purely an economic argument, leaving aside the whole debate over whether those benefiting ought to contribute, the needs of the business and services for educated workers, including historically low paid sectors, and the whole deterrent effect on bright but poor kids of that sort of debt.
I know for certain a number of well motivated young people!e that would have tried for University but the prospect of such huge debt has frightened them off.
With the way the fees do not need to be paid back you only pay if you can afford it so does that mean that these people want to be rich and keep all their money - only those type of people are often shunned on here.
If it helps your argument why don’t you add VAT, Council Tax, Road Tax, TV Licence, Insurance Premium Tax and Stamp Duty? Then you can make that marginal tax rate even higher.