The Benefits of Taxing Graduates

As someone who graduated from University only a few weeks ago, it may seem strange to read that I am fully in favour of plans for a "graduate tax". Unveiled this week by Business Secretary, Vince Cable, an extra income tax for graduates would replace the current system of tuition fees. In my opinion, this is a long overdue reform.

Tuition fees, as a flat levy on all those who attend University, are a hugely regressive measure. A graduate who goes on to work for a large City law firm has the potential to earn massive sums of money each year. A graduate who chooses to work as a teacher, or a social worker, will never see such pay checks. Despite this, both graduates will be liable for the same debt repayment. How on earth can this be right?

A graduate tax will ensure that those who benefit most from a University education will pay back the most. Those who choose to pursue a career solely dedicated to monetary enrichment will have to pay back more than those who choose to enter into socially beneficial careers, or those unable to reach the same heights.

Some say that a graduate tax will stifle ambition. This is a pretty standard argument against progressive taxation. I would place a bet - a University leaver who accepts a place on a Goldman Sachs graduate scheme will not be hugely damaged by an extra 1 or 2 per cent added to their income tax. A person with the intellectual capacity to aspire to these kind of jobs will not be deterred from applying to University because of the massive earnings potential they will still be able to exploit. By contrast, there is a very real risk that a young person hoping to be a teacher will be discouraged from making an application if the current tuition fee system remains. Life could be very hard for a young graduate attempting to pay back the cost of their education if the existing cap on tuition fees is raised.

For me, a graduate tax is the fairest way of recognising the enormous advantage enjoyed by University leavers. This view is shared by a number of campaign organisations, such as the NUS. I hope that the Liberal voice in the coalition is able to prevail over objections from Conservative backbenchers and ensure that those who gain more, pay more.

A First Day at Work

I thought I would write about my first day in a new job. As a temporary worker, you get shifted around various jobs depending on demand. To date, I have carried out work in an office, a factory, and a canteen (proof that a law degree really doesn't carry much weight). My latest employment is with a distribution warehouse in Royston.

I've only been there a day but I've learned an incredible amount about people. For one of my co-workers, this was the first employment he had managed to obtain in six months. He was made redundant earlier in the year and has been on the dole until being given the same opportunity as me - a three day placement with a possible extension next week. Hearing his situation really brought it home to me just how hard things are out in the "real world". As a student you are somewhat insulated from things out there. Sure, I share the same fears when I hear of depressing graduate employment statistics (especially when the news stories are always accompanied by pictures of University of Birmingham graduations). But these people are concerned about keeping a roof over their head - not about walking into a plush high-level job. It's a feeling I just cannot begin to comprehend.

On the other hand, things cannot be that bad in the UK. Another of my colleagues is a white South African, who had moved to Britain after being turfed out of his farm as part of a racial distribution policy. Rather than remain in his own country, he is apparently more content to accept low-level temp work in the UK.

Listening to both guys was an interesting exercise in perspective. For one, he had endured a terrible year with constant worries about the next week or the next month. For another, his work represented a new start immeasurably better than life in his home country. Combined with my own perspective, that of a student with an uncertain future, it enabled me to better understand the way that it is possible to view things differently depending on the lens you look down.

All this from picking stock in a warehouse! Anyway, off to bed now (it's a 6.30 start).

Where It All Went Wrong

I thought that I would wait until the conclusion of the tournament before giving my thoughts on England's World Cup performance. Two reasons for this: firstly to fully let the dust settle before coming up with views, secondly to be able to compare England to some of the more successful teams.

Below I have listed five main areas that I believe were responsible for our dismal showing. Most of these should not be taken in isolation; they often overlap to paint a general picture of the problems we encountered.

1. Fabio Capello - as the manager the buck ultimately stops with him. Much has been written about the position of a foreigner as England manager. Personally I have no problem with a foreign manager taking charge of the team. There is only one condition. The manager must understand the pressures that the team are under. It is vital that a coach comprehends the overwhelming expectations held in relation to the national team. A foreigner will logically find this harder than a person brought up in English football. This is especially so if the foreigner has no experience of the national game, which was the case with Capello. Given his background, he may have overlooked the pressure on the team. His decisions to run the training camp like a military facility and to reveal who was playing two hours before kick-off exacerbated this pre-existing tension and made the team nervy. Evidence for this comes from Rob Green's howler in the very first game. Goalkeepers above all need certainty and consistency. Capello's policy of 'keeping them on their toes' was clearly flawed.

2. The Premier League - our domestic league has often been referred to as the best in the world. This may well be true. If it is true, the reason for it is because it attracts the finest players from around the world. The result of this is that home-grown players get squeezed out. We will come to a time when we need to make a value judgment about the balance between club and country. While having a fantastic national game helps to inspire young English players, in my mind the game (and indeed the country) would be far better served if we had a strong national team to look up to. Only this would generate the excitement needed to truly inspire people. Whether or not this may require limits on foreign players is a matter for debate.

3. English grassroots football - this is the problem that has become more apparent through comparison with other countries. The way the Spanish pass and retain the ball is something completely alien to English football players. I reckon that Gerard Pique, the Spanish centre-back, is a better passer of the ball than every English midfielder in our squad. These differences start at an early age. Kids in Spain, Brazil, Argentina etc are encouraged to develop skills and run with the ball. In England, young kids are placed in 11-a-side contests where the emphasis is on the full time result rather than learning and progress. Anyone who has seen the mental passion of a child's father at a junior's match can testify to this. Common characteristics of junior games are long balls being hoofed up field and a swarm of players following it. Is our national team that different? Look how we relied on banging the ball up field for big Emile Heskey to hold it up. Even the Germans, who based their game on counter-attacks, passed the ball with such speed and accuracy I have never associated with England. It is striking that one of the most naturally talented players in the English squad, Joe Cole, was left on the bench while "strong" players like Heskey and James Milner got the nod.

4. Risk Management - to be successful at sport, like many other professional fields, requires risk and bold thinking. None of this existed in England's world cup bid. Our squad was full of tried and tested players; there were no real suprises. An example of this came in the selection of Matthew Upson, an experienced but woefully out of his depth centre-half, at the expense of Michael Dawson. Younger talents like Darren Bent, Adam Johnson, and Jack Wilshire were all overlooked. Even Sven recognised the need to take risks when he picked Theo Walcott for the last World Cup. Again, maybe Capello would have been more likely to take a punt if there were more young Englishmen to choose from. The prioritisation of foreign stars makes this difficult.

5. Luck - yes, lady luck was not on our side. The biggest example of this is, of course, was the Lampard goal-line fiasco. How the linesman failed to see that I will never know. Also, why could we not have played a team with a dodgy goalkeeper? And Rio Ferdinand's injury significantly disrupted our defensive preparations.

The reality is, however, that we only have ourselves to blame. We will never become serious contenders to win the World Cup until we sort out some of these underlying problems. This must start with re-organising the domestic game so as to encourage national success. Any change would have to begin with grassroots improvement and end with potentially damaging reforms to the Premier League. The question we may end up asking ourselves is: do we really want to win the World Cup?

Money Can't Buy Love

New research this week from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has suggested that the link between marriage and family stability isn't so strong. It had previously been thought that marriage encouraged stable families and prevented children from seeing their parents separate. The IFS have now disputed this claim, finding no tangible link between familial stability and marriage.

According to the IFS, married parents are more likely to stay together for other reasons than the very fact of their marriage. Married parents are often older, wealthier and better able to deal with the pressures of bringing up a family. The actual institution of marriage does nothing to prevent family breakdown.

These new findings seriously undermine conservative arguments that marriage should be recognised in the tax system. For years the Conservative Party have been making the case for marriage tax breaks by pointing to the link with stable families. Now that this logic has been challenged, any potential reforms must surely be shelved.

This is particularly necessary given the damage that a marriage tax break would do to the public finances. Conservative plans to give married couples £3 a week would create another billion pound hole that the UK can ill afford. The Government should think twice before making what would be a costly mistake.

A New Start

So I've just finished my law degree. I am moving on to the next stage of my life and decided to chronicle my next few years in this blog. I hope you enjoy what you read.

The blog will provide an insight into my thoughts on a range of topics, varying from politics to sport to anything that made me think during the day. Like a diary but way more accessible.

Comments and opinions are very welcome :)