James - actually, most students I know who do not come from wealthy families have additional debts on top of their student loan, which *do* need to be paid for before earning begins.

A place at university, a reasonable degree and an unimpeded passage into and upward in the professions can be had by anyone who gives a satisfactory answer to a single-question exam at the age of four: "How much does your father earn?"

Conservatives do not regard this as an appalling social evil and an indictment of the education system: they see it as a good reason to regard higher education as a paid-for service - like elocution lessons, or cosmetic surgery, or a good tailor.

In that worldview, Gove's prejudices and Clegg's policy proposals are surprisingly benign; and they will face stiff opposition from the class-warriors and the economic neocons.

Silver Shred: since when was tax contractual?

Retroactive? Don't be utterly daft.

For a tax system to be fair you have to be able to make informed choices. People know that by going to university they will have to pay fees. People in the future will know they will face higher taxation and will make choices accordingly. Do they need a degree? Will they need to chose a higher salaries job to afterwards to afford bear the higher tax burden?

Imposing a tax retroactively is unfair, unethical and an absolute non-starter. A dreadful idea.

Frankly, this is right up there with the article you wrote about football.

As a fairly recent graduate, I dont even consider my student loan as a tangible debt. I just pay £100-odd per month right off my pay-check.

The student loan I received barely covered 9 months rent in the cheapest accomodation, without bills, food, travel etc. Even despite working throughout university, I still left with £2k+ on credit cards, £3k+ in overdrafts and owing my family money also.

I am fortunate enough to have found a well-paid job, which means I am quite quickly repaying these debts, but for many who are on minimum wage jobs as graduates this would be an unmanageable amount of debt.

I would much rather have received a larger student loan (enough to live off) and be paying that back PAYE, than having to borrow from banks etc. which has left me in a poor financial situation.

As far as I can see it, I borrowed the money as a loan, and I am paying it back with interest. Whether that loan originated from a bank or from the government is almost irrelevant.

Whose higher education would I be paying for in a retrospective tax?
As far as I am concerned, once that loan is paid off, I am all square...

If universities arent making enough money to survive, then they need to look at their spending more closely. Rather than running as an individual 'organisation' they should buy in consortium, for example, rather than trying to impose some ill-imagined stealth tax.

Do we ever have a real debate about whether education is an investment, for the society as well as for the degree holder? Do we question whether education ought to be seen as a privelege or a right?
A society that does not benefit from educating its citizens is obviously not educating them. (Look up Malcolm X on the difference between training and education).
Maybe, given what it happening in some universities- turning them into cash cows milking overseas rich men for their children's wellbeing-we are demonstrating that we are not interested in education at all any more.
But education, like health care seems to me to be an absolute necessity if one wants to sustain our culture and our civilisation; it is necessary if we want to improve the quality of life of the citizens and perhaps enable us to solve ecological and humanitarian problems our world probably will have to face in the next few decades.
Why on earth is there any validity in a debate about charging for education? Why does anyone think that kind of nonsense is at all justifiable?
Soon they will be asking the recently deceased to pay for the cost of their dying health care!
Grow up. All who need health care should be provided it. And all who have the ability (and inclination to do the hard work)to study should be given the opportunity to do so.
And just as one suggestion I would much rather we ditched military aggressions and foreign occupations than education.
This is racist and elitist and "classist" claptrap.
Just get on with it and pay for our own people's education.
It will be worth it.
For all of us.
Lavinia Moore

Can I have a refund for the fees I've already paid for then?

Re 'Blame your parents' 26th July. Are young people voting? If so why aren't they supporting changes in favour of more equality? i.e. socialism. Why do we have this current government? This particular baby boomer (sadly) and Labour Party memnber would welcome some more support from the young.Surely we can influence policy if enough people make the effort?

'For a tax system to be fair you have to be able to make informed choices.'

I think this is the key point, actually. What choice do young people have today? University is now *mandatory* for most young people who want to go on to decent jobs. If you're talking about choice and fairness, the situation now isn't comparable to the situation thirty years ago, when the middle and upper tiers of work and pay were not effectively closed to those without degrees. That's still choice, but it's restricted, limited choice.

Laurie, you are quite right. The state has the power to suppress me in the name of its "legitimacy" to govern me. As a prole, I can imagine that I have protection from injustice. This false security and protection enables me to continue serving a corrupt hegemony (whether Labour or Tory).

Even my language "unconstitutional" is an illusion. Perhaps Orwell was right all along.

The only "rights" I have is to pay taxes until I die, supporting the Rich, and the welfare class. Its interesting how the welfare class are pitied as victims. Perhaps we are all victims.

Yes The Law, there seems to be a lot of hot air generated in Westminster these days it seems. Finding their feet? The Shadow Cabinet must be laughing their parts off.

Let me say I'm a big fan of the NS and I read it every week religiously. But this article was too much - and I suspect many graduates reading it will feel pretty angry too.

I started my undergraduate degree in 1998 - the year tuition fees came in with almost no warning. I had to take out the full value of the student loan each year to pay for them, my accommodation and living costs. I worked full-time every summer to pay-off my overdraft and credit cards. I then took out a whopping bank loan to pay for my post-graduate degree. I left uni with north of £25k of loan debts hanging over me that I've only just paid off.

I'm all for a progressive tax system but in what world is it fair to then be subject to an additional 'graduate tax' when you had no idea this would be the case at the outset? I get the case for reforming funding mechanisms for future students - you can design systems to administer that (possibly) - but how would it work retro-actively? How would you identify graduates? And would it be fair that people who are employed at the same pay grade are subject to different rates of direct taxation according to where and if they went to uni - even if they have already paid the fees they were charged by their uni? That wouldn't be a graduate tax - it would be an aspiration tax. In practice of course, it would just encourage tax evasion.

And yes, as others have said, this is a most daft idea.

If they cancelled my tuition fees, I'd happily accept a graduate tax. However, the biggest problem is that the universities are an inherently elitist idea. They were only ever intended for a limited group of wealthy people. While i welcome more people spending more time in education, any socially just manifestation of universities requires a much more radical rethinking of university culture that doesnt commodify it or render academics impotent, as the present system does.

Aside from problems with a graduate tax (Govt have to provide tons of money upfront, question of ring-fencing etc) there are a couple of practical problems with this:

a)Finding and processing everyone who is a graduate. The Government is unlikely to have a central database of all UK graduates. They just won't find everyone. Those who now live and work overseas will be particularly difficult to track.

b) What about graduates who have already paid some fees- e.g. the previous £1000 upfront fee or newer £3000 'top up' fee...do they get a rebate? Money has already gone to the university so a rebate could require the Govt to clawback off universities. Not ideal.

Sorry, I can't agree.

Of course tuition fees and student debt should be abolished. Surely however, the basis of any fair tax system is one's ability to pay, and thus tax should be based on no factors other than wealth.

All of society benefits from there being universities, not just the graduates. And it doesn't necessarily follow that graduates will end up well paid.

Yes, the wealthier classes have always been and will continue to be the main beneficiaries of state spending in education and other areas. Therefore their taxes should reflect this and they should bear the heaviest burden. But they should be taxed more heavily because they are rich; not because they are graduates.