Skip to main content

Progressive Graduate Contribution - the NUS Blueprint

Those that have followed the link in the previous post will have also noted the following text on the NUS webpage (previously linked and currently linked).

Progressive graduate contribution
NUS' Blueprint proposes that students contribute to the costs of their degree once they have graduated. Under this system those who benefit most from university by earning more will contribute more.


In other words the system proposed by the goverment is much the same as that proposed by the NUS - and supporting the system cannot be seen to be a contravention of the NUS pledge.

Comments

PoliticalHack said…
No. It. Isn't.

The NUS scheme proposes supplementing government spend with additional money through graduate tax.

It abolishes tuition fees, rather than tripling them.

You aren't a stupid man, so stop torturing logic to breaking point.
steve said…
The NUS blueprint is consistent with the Lib Dem policy aim of funding HE through progressive taxation. However, the changes being made to tuition fees result in progressive taxation only below middle incomes. Above middle incomes the changes are regressive, with high earning graduates contributing a smaller proportion of their 30 year gross salary than those on middle incomes.

Not only that but because of the raising of the cap and reduction in the teaching budget, the new system is replacing funding from general taxation (progressive) with tuition fees (regressive above middle incomes) meaning that the system is more regressive than the previous system when looked at holistically.
john said…
By "holistically" do you mean making the assumption that the General Taxation used to subsidise the current system outweighs the fact that comparing system to system the newer one is more progressive - which I accept is arguable even if it is not true.

I would ask to see your detailed calculations as to this.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: