h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So a graduate tax al la Ed Miliband then? I can see real merit to the idea, though I imagine I would probably disagree what consitutes a "valuable" degree in some respects.

FB

To be fair, SoRB thought of it before the union rep.

Why not just increase tax on the highest earners? Better yet, why not enforce the current tax rules on the highest earners, and on businesses who rely on graduates for their profits. If someone is a high earner, chances are that they're a graduate. If they're not, it's very likely that they rely in whole or in part on others who are.

because the highest earners usually do not need to be in the country to earn, pop stars, entrprenuers, millionaires etc.

tax them to much and they become tax exiles and we lose that income stream

look how many hit makers moved to switzerland in the 70s???

Got any figures to back that up Otto? I only ask because in my company (150+ employees) there's only 2 that I know of that have degrees and they are neither at the top nor relied upon for profits.

If you switch from student loan repayments -- which follow you where-ever you take you skills in the world -- to a graduate tax, will that tax also follow you abroad?

swl - nope, no figures, just intuition. I can't comment on your company - I'm sure there are some sectors that do very well with comparatively few graduates, but they're there. I'm trying to think of industries that might not have many graduates. I guess construction (but... architects, surveyors), agriculture (but... vets, machinery design and engineering, crop science).... professional sport (but... doctors, sports science, broadcast media technology, journalism..).

More broadly, everyone benefits from the existence of graduates. Most obviously doctors and teachers, but other graduate roles in the economy and in civil society. The more someone earns, the more they personally benefit from civil society which in turn depends on graduate jobs (amongst other things), and therefore the more they should pay. I can't think of a single example (real or hypothetical) of someone who is a high earner (though not a graduate) who doesn't substantially depend - directly or indirectly - on higher education.

What the Tories have done is interpret the value of higher education as being to the individual only, with no wider significance. We're back to "there's no such thing as society", I'm afraid.

Taff - I don't really believe that large numbers of people do leave. There are a few high value superstars who might do, but for the most part, people won't go because their work/family/business is here. In any case, we're not talking about a return to 70s levels of taxes.

And a helluva lot of graduates end up as lawyers and bankers

Let's not be naive - the principle beneficiary of a degree is the graduate.

Yes graduates are important - but they were important when they were a small elite. Are they more or less important now that there are so many more? I've seen jobs advertised selling services door-to-door that stipulated graduates only should apply.

I don't disagree - of course graduates benefit from their degree in all kinds of ways. Enhanced career prospects and earnings is one of them, and if they're doing well, they'll pay more tax because they're earning more.

Whether we have too many graduates and whether they're in the right subjects is another issue entirely.

Not been following the conversation particularly closely, but here is an article on that Channel 4 programme that might be interesting:

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_great_martin_durkin_swindle/#When:12:46:34Z

It seems it was made by Martin Durkin, of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was comprehensively shown to be rubbish. It also seems that this programme too was full of... well.

Haven't watched the programme or read the article though, just throwing another opinion out there.

Also having skimmed through the backlog..

The govt needs to reduce the deficit, which is true, but how it achieves this is wide open. This govt is choosing 77% cuts and 23% tax increases: going 23% cuts & 77% tax hikes would have had a very different impact.

Also, this govt's Big Lie is that it was New Labour's tax & spend policies which provoked this crisis is pure, utter horseshit. It's true that the public finances weren't in great shape for many reasons (mentioned above), but most of the govt debt has been transferred over from the private sector because it would have triggered an outright depression if 80% of the finance sector had collapsed due to its indebtedness and overall idiocy.

The Tories and Lib Dems* are definitely not wasting the crisis, but it's basically to get the rich richer and the poor poorer. 1911 here we come!


(and wtf must most of their voters be thinking now?!)

<>

though not many off them have media studies degrees????

On the subject of 'worthless' degrees, the economist in me rankles a bit. Apart from the 'inherent' worthiness of engineering/science degrees (Pinniped, Dogster, Sorb etc), just imagine there was *one* history professor who understood the effects of, say, Tudor Britain or how the industrial revolution developed. S/he'd be very well paid if they could teach to any kind of level, cos so many people want to learn about history, and would be a millionaire if they could write a half-decent book.

It's not just (even?) about what is deemed 'important', it's also about how many people can do what's deemed important.

I hesitate to start you off pedro, because you have a track record of being a little domineering on all things economic.

Nonetheless, I think you'll find that everyone who attaches most value to STEM subjects does so based on a belief that the practitioners of these specialisms themselves have more economic value than do other graduates.

Since you mention engineers, I'd like to say that my peer professionals are proud to know that they build the infrastructure that provides the prosperity of future generations, that they contribute to their various nations' trade balances, that they create jobs directly and indirectly and that they do all this because their calling is to systematically translate the advances of science into practical techniques to benefit humanity.

I think that's a pretty solid all-round economic and social contribution, don't you? If you can suggest a non-STEM subject that hits all the buttons, it would be good to hear of it.

And I take your point about numbers. We do need a few able history teachers, just as we need thousands of well-trained and well-motivated engineers.

Hi Pinniped, I'll try and stay calm.

I agree that engineers etc do have a vital function in society (now more than ever), but we only need a certain number of *any* profession or trade. Jeez, we even *need* bankers!

As for the all-round social/economic benefit, I'd guess primary school teachers must rank very highly, but the point I'm trying make really is that we need all sorts.

If you're arguing a case for getting the relative numbers right, then amen to that. I personally think the numbers are a long way out of balance right now. We surely have (at least) ten times the numbers of Media Studies graduates that the economy can accommodate.

You're right too if you mean that the problem isn't just about the absolute figures, ie about pushing too many young people overall towards a university education. It's arguably possible to get rich in Western societies without making a useful economic contribution, with the result that bright people enter selfish professions. Too many of my cherished STEM graduates turn towards the Dark Side in speculative financial services. You have to be among the top 2% or so academically to have any hope of becoming a vet. The surfeit of lawyers is not much different proportionally from the surface of would-be media moguls, only more expensive and more parasitic. All of these things are IMO pretty stupid.

Primary school teachers? Well, OK. They are vital formers of impressionable opinions. They needn't be degree-standard mathematicians, but I think it's vital they have a STEM outlook and encourage the very young towards numeracy. We don't want to see early-age teaching becoming the fallback career of the economically-useless graduate class, bitter and still not sure where they went wrong.

pedro,

> On the subject of 'worthless' degrees, the economist in me rankles a bit. Apart from the 'inherent' worthiness of engineering/science degrees (Pinniped, Dogster, Sorb etc)...

Not sure if this is what you're suggesting, but I never said anything about worthless degrees! (And I'm not used to being grouped parenthetically with Sorb .)

For that matter, I didn't even do a science/engineering degree. I have a BA. In maths.

Dogster, you're still part of the STEM cell though.

Pin, hold onto your hat, but I think we actually agree here, although I'm probably a bit more positive about teachers.