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

PoliticalHackUK 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.
Unknown 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 Hemming 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

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.