Tax on graduates

Press, 29 September 1988, Page 20

Tax on graduates

Sir,—All members of Lincoln College will welcome Professor Hawke’s support for our autonomy, but will be alarmed at his admission (September 27) that he expected - some drop in student numbers if the Government adopted his proposed graduate tax. Tertiary student enrolments in New Zealand are already lower than those in many developed countries. We need to encourage young people to undertake tertiary studies, not discourage them. Students already make a substantial contribution to their education by foregoing income during the three to seven or more years required for study. It takes many years to catch up this lost income. Those who do obtain higher than average salaries will automatically pay more than the average amount of tax. Why add an unnecessary complication? Where possible, the extra tax will be passed on to consumers (the public) anyway. Graduate tax seems to be at odds with Professor Hawke’s wish to increase participation in tertiary education, by making it more attractive. Those from lower-income families and other under-repre-sented groups are those most likely to be discouraged by the proposals. — Yours, etc.,/ (Dr) A. S. CAMPBELL, Reader in Soil Science and Chairman, Lincoln College Branch, A.U.T.N.Z. September 27,1988.

Sir,—Of all the fallacies inherent in the “user-pays” approach to tertiary education, the most obvious surely is the disregard of the fact that the student

is already “paying” the greater part of the burden, by devoting years of his or her life to the task of study. Anyone who thinks that there is no sacrifice involved in completing, for instance, the six-year full-time university course in medicine, should try it. Merely to gain entry to the course requires several hard years of preliminary work at a standard which the majority of people do not care to attempt. If everything is to be reduced to the requirements of cost-accounting, the tertiary student is already entitled to a substantial “credit” from the loss of potential income, and the actual loss of leisure time, during years of study. This far outweighs, I suggest, the “cost” to the taxpayer. — Yours, etc., HARRY EVISON. September 28,1988.