Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

David, can’t you see the contradiction in the idea that many non-grads are doing graduate work? It can’t be graduate work in that case, can it? You can cling to the ONS definition, but that doesn’t make it right.

There are degrees that are necessary for people to enter certain jobs - largely the true professions. But many ‘graduate jobs’ are simply roles that used to be carried out by those who’d trained on the job, but can now be restricted to graduates as there are many of them.

One ‘solution’ (if you see that as a problem) is to accept that they are not ‘graduate jobs’ at all, and restrict the numbers with degrees you feel are unnecessary. This would almost inevitably mean that education would be restricted to the wealthy or that only certain subjects could be studied. The result would be a (more) divided and philistine nation with a workforce that is uneducated and vulnerable to shifts in economic development.

Alternatively, you could take the view that education is a good thing, and should be available to all who want it, stop the nonsense of telling students and parents that a degree should be a passport to an easy life, and encourage competition between applicants based on experience and aptitude.

That way, we get the best people in the right jobs (which you suggest is happening anyway) and have a country with an educated and therefore flexible workforce, which is not a cultural desert.

I know which I’d prefer.

By "preparing so many children for adult life and the world of work." do you mean telling most of those in schools that -
"We don't care that you can't afford to get any more formal education after you leave school, however much you are desperate to be a doctor, teacher, scientist, musician or graphic designer, because you were not born into the right family, living in the right area and working at a wellpaid career. If you work hard at stacking shelves in the supermatket, maybe after 10 years you will have enough saved to pay the £9,000 a year fees and your living expenses while you study. Meanwhile, don't get married and/or have any children to soak up those savings. However, we will make sure that someone's sex, ethnic origin, gender preferences, physical disabilities, and languages don't bar them from employment in the job of their choice."

It seems that you are totally satisfied with the education system in the UK, that 40% of those that start teacher training reject and so many children do not get the start in adult life that they should.

Who is saying anything of the kind?

See www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1337423-Child-poverty-is-overwhelming-teachers-GPs for more evidence of inequality in this country, for all its emphasis on "inclusion"

Doodledog

Who is saying anything of the kind?

David49 is saying it, Doodledog, so for him it is a truth set in concrete, whatever anyone says who has been struggling in the education world ”. . children . . . to get the start in adult life that they should.” What every single teacher or ex-teacher on this thread (and most others who are/were not teachers), has said is that to get the start in adult life they should, young people need to get every scrap of education they can, both occupational and also of subjects which have little or no relevance to their occupation. Education is for the whole person, not just of that part of them which earns money. Education purely for work produces dull barren minds.

As I said in my post on the child poverty thread "Isn't it interesting that those closest to the problem are not believed by those observing from a safe distance?”

The nation is likely to benefit from having a well-educated workforce...

Doodledog

IMO this is so self-evident that you can be forgiven for wondering why governments, educationalists, commerce - and indeed, everyone, isn't fighting like the very devil for it.

But, a well-educated public would make demands for itself that would alter the whole dynamic of the 'governors' and the 'governed'. A literate public would be very difficult to control - is it in the interests of governments to have a public capable of critical-thinking?

How would you get such individuals to work for peanuts doing 12-hour shifts in the gig economy and contract jobs (for example)?

I'm suggesting that it would not benefit those with vested interests nor governments that represent them - who rely at one end on 'educated professionals', and a docile largely 'uneducated' labour force at the other end (in simplistic terms).

Will this ever change?

Depends how you define rich. Inheritance tax is at the moment is set at anything over £325k, if you have a property, have worked hard all your life and saved like previous Governments advised us to then many people will come under that rule and we certainly don’t consider ourselves rich. I understand properties in the south and parts of the midlands will be higher than further north but we can’t choose where we are born. My husband and I don not have iPhones just standard 15 year old mobile, in fact the old boy doesn’t have anything he hates mobiles! We do have savings but we are thinking ahead to maybe needing care home in future, we will never want to be a burden to our children. We buy what we need, I use to say to my children you have to learn between wanting and needing, do not spend what you do not have because at some point it has to be paid back. Same with Governments over spending leads to more borrowing, bigger debts and higher taxes and at the end of the day it is the people that foot the bill. Governments can promise what they like, get their good salaries and expenses, just remember who’s paying for it.

WelwynWitch3 IHT on property is up to a million for couples or the remaining member of a couple if the allowance has not been used and £500,000 for a single person. Obvious anything over that either in value of property or anything else in the estate will be subject to IHT.

Most educationlists/sociologists will have come across the Marxist theory of Bowles and Gintis

"For Bowles and Gintis, education casts a long shadow over work. The capitalist ruling class created education as an institution to serve their own interests. Education prepares children, especially working-class children, to serve the ruling capitalist class."

Seems quite a few people still subscribe to this view!

foxie it is only £500,000 for people who own a house. The £325,000 (I think) amount is the amount for everyone, but the extra allowance, introduced by David Cameron I think, taking the allowance to £500,000 is only an extra allowance on the owner’s primary property. So if you don’t own a property, you don’t get it, and if you own two properties, it’s only allowable on the first property.

Elegran

Doodledog

Who is saying anything of the kind?

David49 is saying it, Doodledog, so for him it is a truth set in concrete, whatever anyone says who has been struggling in the education world ”. . children . . . to get the start in adult life that they should.” What every single teacher or ex-teacher on this thread (and most others who are/were not teachers), has said is that to get the start in adult life they should, young people need to get every scrap of education they can, both occupational and also of subjects which have little or no relevance to their occupation. Education is for the whole person, not just of that part of them which earns money. Education purely for work produces dull barren minds.

As I said in my post on the child poverty thread ^"Isn't it interesting that those closest to the problem are not believed by those observing from a safe distance?”^

What I am saying is that schools in particular could do a much better job for the nation by improving discipline, self confidence and a more realistic way towards work than sending half of the children to university where there are not enough jobs afterwards.
It’s not about education for educations sake it’s about paying the rent, there is plenty of time for culture and the arts after you can pay the rent

Education is wonderful in its own right. Learning for the joy of learning.

However learning in order to earn a living is also wonderful because everyone needs to earn their own living. And everyone should be contributing to society in some way, through their jobs, taxes etc

it’s not about education for educations sake, it’s about paying the rent

And everyone should be making some contribution towards society. It’s not about me, me, me, it’s about all of us.

I can see your minds are closed to any change, on one hand we have employers saying they are desperate for skilled workers, on the other hand a great many are leaving university with no skills that any one wants.

I was lucky I didn’t go to university but I did do 2 yrs business management which served me rather well.

Maddyone It is a million, good news?

"When a spouse or civil partner dies and does not use their full NRB or RNRB, the unused percentage of those allowances can be transferred to the estate of their surviving spouse or civil partner. This means that a couple who are married or in civil partnership will have a potential combined tax free allowance of £1 million."

David49 - ^"What I am saying is that schools in particular could do a much better job for the nation by improving discipline, self confidence and a more realistic way towards work than sending half of the children to university where there are not enough jobs afterwards.
It’s not about education for educations sake it’s about paying the rent, there is plenty of time for culture and the arts after you can pay the rent"^

Schools are working their damnedest to instill discipline, self-confidence and a work ethic in the children they teach, but are fighting a rear-guard action against the elements of popular culture that glorify indiscipline in private and work life, and confidence only in one's right to refuse anything that doesn't have instant appeal, throw a wobbly at the least criticism and regard a work ethic as a boring fetish of old farts.

When did you last go to school, David? if I may be nosy. and do you know anyone well who is or was at the sharp end of the blackboard?

foxie48

Maddyone It is a million, good news?

"When a spouse or civil partner dies and does not use their full NRB or RNRB, the unused percentage of those allowances can be transferred to the estate of their surviving spouse or civil partner. This means that a couple who are married or in civil partnership will have a potential combined tax free allowance of £1 million."

Yes that’s right.
But only if you own a house. I do, so we benefit. Others rent, then it’s £325,000 each, so £650,000 for the couple. We’re not rich enough to need one million allowance, but if houses keep going up, who knows?

And the house has to be left to direct descendants (which includes grandchildren, stepchildren and adopted children).

I heard that the Conservatives have put Labour on the spot as regards IHT relief on agricultural land passed to the next generation. They will have to either confirm or deny - if they refuse to comment it’s reasonable to assume that’s one of the ‘tax loopholes’ they have their eyes on. So if agricultural relief goes, what of relief for other business assets?

One thing is certain, Labour will not increase the IHT allowance, but many Gransnetters have stated they don’t mind paying IHT so that’s alright then.
For them anyway.

It’s not about education for educations sake it’s about paying the rent, there is plenty of time for culture and the arts after you can pay the rent

Culture and the Arts don't arrive fully formed. Someone has to produce them, and if we refuse to educate people do do that we either stagnate culturally, or leave the transmission of ideas, beauty and entertainment to those who don't need to pay the rent.

As for their being 'not enough jobs', my understanding is that many employers struggle to fill vacancies.

Like many on this site my final year was mid 1960s when around 10% went to university the rest of us got a job and everyone did get a job, further education was day release with technical college for whatever you decide to do, after that full time courses for higher levels.

Life is different now but it’s no more difficult I cope just fine with new technology and new regulation, maybe I don’t like it, but tick the boxes nevertheless.

The outcome for many children is considerably worse now I know many graduates that cannot find the job they want including my own family, it’s not surprising that mental health is so poor.

Finally I profoundly disagree with education for its own sake, it should be about earning a living and benefiting the nation, the UK has certainly failed in the latter.

Germanshepherdsmum

I heard that the Conservatives have put Labour on the spot as regards IHT relief on agricultural land passed to the next generation. They will have to either confirm or deny - if they refuse to comment it’s reasonable to assume that’s one of the ‘tax loopholes’ they have their eyes on. So if agricultural relief goes, what of relief for other business assets?

If one believes current food costs are high - Labour won't be causing farm prices, passed on to consumer level - to decline.

I wonder how many do their homework about their hoped-for career before deciding on a university course? The law is a hugely oversubscribed profession and very competitive, yet so many think having a law degree from any old university is their key to riches. It isn’t.