The Keighley and Ilkley Liberal Democrat Website - before it was pulled!

I'm not sure who wrote this, but it appeared on the home page of the the Keighley and Ilkley Liberal Democrat Website, until it was pulled!

I created this web site in the days that the Liberal Democrats had principles. I think many local ones, Judith Brooksbank as a shining example, still have them.

However, the issue of fees for university students made me fall out of love with Nick Clegg and other 'Economic Liberals'. In consequence, I resigned from the Party.

The Party doesn't seem to have noticed, and sent me (and my wife) a Member's mailing. That includes a summarry of an interview with Nick Clegg about the issue of student fees. His responses, reported there, enraged me so much that I decided that it was just to call him to question here. Let me explain why...

The report says: "Nick then moved to take head on Evan's (Evan Harris, former Oxford West and Abbingdon MP) suggestion that ... Higher Education costs could be met by general taxation or a graduate tax.

"You are then calling for contributions from those who don't benefit from university to pay for those who do" said Clegg.

Let us pause for a moment to consider that statement: who does actually "benefit from university?"

Well, obviously, most garaduates benefit by getting paid more. However, after personal allowances, if they get paid more, then they pay more income tax than those who are paid less.

There is an anomaly here: those who get paid more than £40k above the threshold, see their National Insurance contributions above that drop from 11.5% to 1.5%. That's right, folk paid over 40,000 pounds pay 10% less on that income than earnings by everyone below that. Keeping in mind that only 30 years contributions are needed to get paid a full national pension (though, yes, it is a good thing that that pension is going up to £140 a week) most people pay NI for the best part of 45 years, so where does the other 15 years' contributions go? One place is the NHS - and it is right that the healthy should pay for the sick. Another is to pay for benefits for the disabled and those who cannot get a job. That is right too.

The thing is that these rights to support in time of need are exactly those that ought to be supported by general taxation. The distinction between Income Tax and National Insurance is wrong - and so is the 10% less paid by those who earn more than £40,000 above the threshold.

Back to my main point...

High pay ought to carry its own taxation burden. That has nothing to do with whether that pay is as a result of a university education or not.

Getting back to, "those who don't (and do) benefit from universtity." I hope I've dealt with the issue of pay - that should be taken care of by a decent Income Tax regime. Who else benefits? Teachers have to go to university and get a degree. I'd argue that school pupils (whose parents pay tax) are the ones who benefit most. Next, consider doctors, nurses and dentists (and vets). I'd think that their patients are the ones who get most benefit. Then there are all the other subjects for degrees, the other arts and sciences. The benefit there is less immediate, direct and personal, but the ultimate beneficiary is the whole of humanity.

That is why it isn't just graduates who benefit from their degrees - and why everyone (who has an income high enough to afford to pay) ought to contribute to the cost of educating graduates. Actually, I think that argument applies just as much to post-graduate studies. As a society, we probably benefit even more from those who are bright enough to get Master's or Doctor's degrees.

This time, I DON'T agree with Nick!

That goes on... Whether it is clearing snow and spreading grit, supporting the children of single mothers, funding public libraries, or whatever, those in need ought to get the appropriate help. Those who get paid more ought to accept a duty to pay more. It isn't the cost of supplying the necessary support that should be being targeted to balance the deficit, but the lack of contribution from those who are wealthy enough to afford to help those in need.

Today, the issue of bankers' bonuses has come up again. I was going to ask whether the 'stars' who caused the finnacial crisis really, really needed to be kept in this country to pay their 20% of the UK's tax (how does that compare with their responsibility for the financial crisis?), but The Indepedent has an ironic article that does it much better than I can.

With Christmas so recently past, we should remember the words of the carol, Good King Wenceslas. He went out to help someone more in need than he was. That's what I thought the Liberal Democrats were about. Nick Clegg seems to have a different inspiration!