Tuition Fees: A capped graduate tax?

The last few weeks in politics have been dominated by the issue of tuition fees, with the coalition wanting to raise the limit on these while at the same time cutting funding and access schemes such as the EMA. The main alternative proposal seems to be a graduate tax. However, what is the real difference between the current proposal and a graduate tax? The coalition's argument for the fees is that it's fairer than before because you don't start paying back until you're earning over £21,000 a year. What's the substantial difference between this and a graduate tax which you don't pay below that threshold. Surely a graduate tax of 9% of earnings above £21,000 (the proposed rate at which repayment of fees would start) would mean graduates paying exactly the same as paying back fees. The real difference would be that they only have to pay them until they've paid back their fees plus whatever interest has been added, or until thirty years after they've graduated when the balance is written off. The reason that a graduate tax is more "progressive" (what a horrible word) that fees is that it doesn't place this cap on payment for education. Instead the argument is that you have a high earning job because of your education therefore while you are earning that salary you should be taxed on it. Even if the level of taxation was lower, the longer period of payment would make up for that and it wouldn't be seen as a large debt hanging over people's heads. The whole issue seems to be a branding one. In fact I'm opposed to both of these and think that education should be paid for from general taxation as it makes such a substantial contribution to society but as with much of politics these days there seems to be very little distinction between policies once you actually look at them.


There are a few other points worth raising in this debate. I heard Paddy Ashdown debating with a student and saying why oppose these proposals if you didn't oppose the introduction of fees by Labour. That seems to me a complete political smokescreen that is being put up by the coalition, who are screaming "these plans are fairer than what you've got now." However, what it ignores is that many of the people objecting to the rise no objected to the introduction of fees in the first place. Finally, a friend of mine pointed out that this is all being done in the name of sorting out the country's finances, but in fact because the government is going to have to pay these fees up front it won't make a difference because it's years until we see them being paid back.

The wider point here is that a generation who got free education, or even grants, had easy access to jobs, the housing market, pensions, healthcare and many other things is suddenly realising that the country had paid for all of this and will have to pay it back in the future. Instead of taking responsibility for it and repaying it through higher taxes now, meaning that those who have higher salaries as a result will pay it back, they are forcing my generation to start having to pay for it. Yet at the same time there are less jobs, less opportunity to get onto the housing ladder, little chance of pensions, etc.