Things you hate IV

Dogs.

 

I like dogs, but there is one in the neighbourhood yapping its effing head off every morning before 7am and then through the afternoon and early evening.

Seems likely those are the times it’s inattentive owner shuts it in the back garden.

So, on balance I’d say people rather than dogs at the moment.

 

Tbf, I have no problem with dingos, wolves or coyotes, so maybe it's the combination of dog with human that so irks me.

 

That the term student 'loan' is used (because it is more politically tolerable) rather than admit it is a student tax (for all but the rich) based on means testing.

In a loan, you know all of the rules up front. You understand how much you are going to pay back, unless interest rates change or you cannot pay it back and have to renegotiate the terms.

In a tax, the terms can change at any time.

As an example, the government is planning to reduce the amount at which students start paying back their student loans, and as they pay a percentage above that point (think it's currently something like 3.5% above RPI) will pay back far more than they did previously. It is a classic stealth tax rise.

Graduates earning over £27k are now effectively paying 42% of their wages as tax, which is pretty much the same percentage as a £99k-a-year non-graduate. A graduate earning over £50k will now pay 52% of their salary as taxes.

All the while, the gap in wages of those who attend and don't attend university keeps shrinking (going from 18% when many made the decision to go to university, to 11% today).

Paying a student tax, where the % they owe and pay back is entirely at the whim of the government is highly irrational. Nobody knows how much the decision will cost them and therefore whether they are making a rational choice, especially now everyone is paying back more than they expected to as per the terms when they took out "the loan".

Whilst I imagine there will be plenty of pushback at the largest tax burden in peacetime (put almost entirely on the young working population), I imagine middle class parents will eventually catch on about the particular unfairness here and there might be some pushback (especially given the richest wont have taken out student loans, so will avoid the tax rise).

But as long as they get to use the misnomer "loan", the understanding of this stealth tax is heavily diluted.

 

The worst thing is you wait 2 years for a bonus and Student Loans take most of it.

No holiday... again.

 

If you consider that all Uni education should be state funded, it's right to see it as a tax.
If you consider that students should pay for investing in further education to improve their earning capabilities, then it's a cheap loan which may never need to be paid back, and is only repaid as a slice on income when the student is earning a reasonable salary.

 

Well, then it is a tax, because that clearly is not the point of further education, although it might be a side-effect.

 

It is for many people. Those that go "for the experience" and don't consider any impact on future employment may well be less likely to ever need to pay it back.
As I said if you don't believe it should be state funded then it is clearly a loan recovered as a % of earnings that might never need to be paid back.

 

You don't think that many people engage in further education because they value learning for its own sake, then?

 

The value of the "loan" though is a total misnomer. No one really pays off the "loan", or is expected to pay it off in full, as you pay interest on it immediately (long before you start working) and interest is 3.5% above RPI. Unless you start on a very high salary before the interest payments get too big, it could be 1 trillion pounds for all that it matters.

Instead, what you are actually paying is a percentage of your salary, over a certain personal allowance, for 30 years. The more you earn, the more you pay. So people are paying substantially different amounts (without knowing in advance how much) for the same product at the same interest rate, based on income. I.e. it is a tax.

And just like with freezing income tax bands, or increasing %s of national insurance contributions, lowering the personal allowance before you pay off your "loan" means all graduates are paying more tax.

I'm not really stating whether University is worth it. On average, right now, it gives an 11% premium in salary for a 9% increase in tax, suggesting it is just about worth it, unless governments change the threshold again (which they probably will).

The issue I have with calling it a loan, when it is a tax on employment determined by the government, and that tax has just risen.

 

Whether you call it "a loan with repayment rates based on tiered earnings (ability to pay)" or "a tax on employment only payable by those who have had a Uni education paid for by the state as a way of repaying that funding" I guess doesn't matter.

 

None that I know but I'm sure some do. I guess it depends very much on the degree chosen ? Should that be free or paid for by the state ?

 

Well, I certainly don't regard my job as being to get my students higher earnings. I regard it as being to enhance their knowledge and understanding. There are plenty of students who go to uni because they enjoy learning and want to learn more. I did, for one.

I'm not sure I understand the last question. Clearly it can't be free - someone has to pay for it.

 

Sounds horrific. I also have a very large dog who normally is ok when on the lead but occasionally some little dog comes up barking in his face and you can almost see him thinking, just **** off before I lose my sh1t, then he does and the owner of the small dog gives you a dirty look (not in a good way).

 

What subject do you teach Keighley - was it Law ?
Last question meant should the student pay or the state provide it free and cover as part of general taxes.

 

Cycling/running with your tethered dog seems very cool, but it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Yes. Your point being? Not all students want to study law so that thay can earn big bucks in a commercial law firm, you know. Of course, lots do. But even in respect of those that do, my job is to educate, not to secure them the highest paid jobs possible. There are plenty of other degrees out there where career earnings are clearly not the primary goal. If that were the case, then why would anyone study archaeology, or anthropology?

I'd prefer it to be covered through general taxation. I'd also prefer there to be fewer universities, but that's another issue.

 

I wasn’t making a point, I just wasn’t sure.
I wasn’t suggesting everyone does a degree to secure the highest paid job possible. But most taking a law degree would surely be hoping for a career in law. Many others taking history degrees for example did it partly to improve job prospects as a graduate, partly out of interest in the subject and partly just to enjoy 3 years of uni life of drinking, partying, sex and drugs.

 

If further/higher education was just about careers and employment, all degrees would be vocational. In fact, I think there should be more vocational courses than there are - it was a mistake to get rid of the polys - but there is also value in learning for its own sake.

 

Many management trainee schemes and professions favour graduate intake. A degree is a great help for getting into a competitive job or starting a few steps up the ladder. Almost all audit intake at EY was graduates. Didn’t have to be a relevant degree, could be history, archaeology, anything but a degree was the requirement. I don’t know anyone who went to Uni without either wanting to improve job prospects, or just sample 3 years of Uni life. None went purely for the thrill of learning though of course I’m sure some students do.

 

It depends what you mean by “improve job prospects”. You seem to be suggesting that even before they apply for college/university, the main motivation for students is their future career, and further education is just a step to that. With respect, I think that is the view of someone who has been in a career for a while - looking back, it’s easy to see a progression from school, to college, to career. But in fact, most kids straight out of school have little clear idea of what they want to do. So they go into further education partly to fill the time, partly because they are expected to do so, partly because they want to learn more about something and yes, sometimes because they have an eye to a career. It is true that, for all of those categories, further/higher education enhances employability, but IMO that’s not the main function of further education and nor do I think it is the main reason why people enter into it.

 

We’ve obviously moved in very different circles. Pretty much everyone I know went to Uni and went primarily with a view to enhancing future employment prospects and career, and have a great time while doing that. Maybe just one went purely to learn, classics. Anyway we’ve probably done this to death ?

 

Clearly we have, probably explains why you make much more money than me!

 

Same for me. From the time I hit secondary school, we were told that this is all about university, you need a degree for your career, blah blah blah. All of my schoolfriends applied because they felt like it was a necessity if you wanted to have a decent career, same with the people I met at uni.

This is, of course, a huge issue because I reckon the vast majority of people have no sodding idea what want to do for a living when they start applying to UCAS, which is likely the reason most people don't get a degree relevant to something they end up working in. It's honestly pretty silly we make kids start to make decisions about their vocational future when they're 15 or lower. They have absolutely no clue who they are then.

 

Only if you include my income from drugs running and money laundering.

 

Yes agreed. I didn’t know what I wanted to do when I started my degree, nor did almost all of my friends. Just that it was important to get a degree. It’s so difficult to know what you want to do or even what jobs exist at that age. My dad was a Consultant Cardiologist, my mother a teacher. They were the only jobs I really knew.

 

...and the 'Unis' stealing all the 'Polys' clothes: non-traditional routes to entry, working with local businesses to supply training & research, flexible study modes, sandwich degrees etc.

An ex-boss of mine used to lament that up to 1992 there was a gentleman's agreement between the 'traditional' universities that they would never advertise course vacancies, the new universities weren't bound by this agreement so they actively sought new blood leading to a situation where "...the only winners were advertising agencies...".

 

BBC grammar.

"He also emphasises the importance of digital skills saying it should be added to the three Rs of reading, writing and (a)rithmetic."

Why is the a in ( )?

My own grammar is bad, I expect the professional people at the BBC to be better.

 

The demise of 3D cinema, TVs and Blu-Ray.

I liked 3D films at cinema and on a projector.