college tuition in Scotland question

[Anonymous]

Random question from an article in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/st-andrews-will-and-kate-and-uncle-sam-studied-here.html?hpw&rref=fashion&_r=0

What is not cheap, by British standards, is the tuition. American students are among the highest paying on campus, with a tuition of about $27,000 for St. Andrews, not including room and board (Scots and many European Union students attend for $3,000 a year, while classmates from the rest of Britain pay roughly $15,000 a year). Despite this, the tuition can look like a deal to parents who are used to seeing much higher numbers in the United States.

Anyone know why the tuition is so cheap ($3,000) for many EU students (Scots makes sense), while it is $15,000 a year for British students? Seems like a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Also -- completely unrelated to my question by -- wow. I cry to think about needing to spend only $3,000 a year on a decent college education.

[Anonymous]

Erasmus program. It's an EU program where you can study at other schools in the EU and pay only a fixed fee equivalent to your local tuition at your home country. In many European countries, university education is free or very heavily subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also -- completely unrelated to my question by -- wow. I cry to think about needing to spend only $3,000 a year on a decent college education.

Depending on your situation, you'd end up paying more overall because tax rates are much higher in most EU countries compared to the US. So over your child's lifetime, it costs most to do it the EU way.

I lived in an EU country and VAT (sales tax) on all items was 20%, including food. Rich or poor, no matter -- you all pay 20% on everything you buy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also -- completely unrelated to my question by -- wow. I cry to think about needing to spend only $3,000 a year on a decent college education.

Depending on your situation, you'd end up paying more overall because tax rates are much higher in most EU countries compared to the US. So over your child's lifetime, it costs most to do it the EU way.

I lived in an EU country and VAT (sales tax) on all items was 20%, including food. Rich or poor, no matter -- you all pay 20% on everything you buy.

That's a much better way to do taxes. The US should adopt a VAT of 20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also -- completely unrelated to my question by -- wow. I cry to think about needing to spend only $3,000 a year on a decent college education.

Depending on your situation, you'd end up paying more overall because tax rates are much higher in most EU countries compared to the US. So over your child's lifetime, it costs most to do it the EU way.

I lived in an EU country and VAT (sales tax) on all items was 20%, including food. Rich or poor, no matter -- you all pay 20% on everything you buy.

That's a much better way to do taxes. The US should adopt a VAT of 20%.

I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, a national sales tax is very clean. Everyone pays it, and there are no special "deductions" like we have for income tax. On the other hand, it affects the poor more than the rich, since the rich don't spend as high as % of their income on goods and services (they invest), so it's a regressive tax on the poor basically.

I suppose that can be solved with EITC (earned income tax credit), which is basically a handout to the poor.

Most EU countries also have a progressive income tax, and it's fairly high compared to US income tax.

[Anonymous]

Here's an example. My friend has a company in the EU and if he wants his employee to receive 1,000 euros a month in his pocket (after tax), the total cost to the employer is about 1,700 euros due to all the taxes and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also -- completely unrelated to my question by -- wow. I cry to think about needing to spend only $3,000 a year on a decent college education.

Depending on your situation, you'd end up paying more overall because tax rates are much higher in most EU countries compared to the US. So over your child's lifetime, it costs most to do it the EU way.

I lived in an EU country and VAT (sales tax) on all items was 20%, including food. Rich or poor, no matter -- you all pay 20% on everything you buy.

And everything is taxed or involves a fee of some sort. In the UK you need a license to watch TV and if you don't have one you will be fined.

[Anonymous]

a license to watch TV? That makes no sense. Are you pulling my leg?

As for the flat tax, I am not sure I agree with that. 20% for someone who earns $20,000 a year is a much bigger bite out of the paycheck than it is for someone who earns $100,000 a year. Doesn't seem fair when it's for necessities. I have no problem taxing luxuries, eating out, junk food, clothes over a certain price point, cars etc. But a poor person shouldn't have to pay a big tax on milk, cheese and meat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Erasmus program. It's an EU program where you can study at other schools in the EU and pay only a fixed fee equivalent to your local tuition at your home country. In many European countries, university education is free or very heavily subsidized.

Thanks! That answers my original question.

the British kids can't take part in the Erasmus program ... for Scotland, though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also -- completely unrelated to my question by -- wow. I cry to think about needing to spend only $3,000 a year on a decent college education.

Depending on your situation, you'd end up paying more overall because tax rates are much higher in most EU countries compared to the US. So over your child's lifetime, it costs most to do it the EU way.

I lived in an EU country and VAT (sales tax) on all items was 20%, including food. Rich or poor, no matter -- you all pay 20% on everything you buy.

We don't earn a high income (for the DC area -- HHI about $120K -- but it is too much to expect much aid, so in our situation we'd probably be better off paying more in taxes... especially because we don't consume a lot so we wouldn't pay 20% tax on a lot!

Although I suppose we could figure out what we do spend each year and save 20% of that towards college.... except we won't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a license to watch TV? That makes no sense. Are you pulling my leg?

As for the flat tax, I am not sure I agree with that. 20% for someone who earns $20,000 a year is a much bigger bite out of the paycheck than it is for someone who earns $100,000 a year. Doesn't seem fair when it's for necessities. I have no problem taxing luxuries, eating out, junk food, clothes over a certain price point, cars etc. But a poor person shouldn't have to pay a big tax on milk, cheese and meat.

Not at all. They have vans that drive around with equipment to detect if you are receiving a signal. I kid you not.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/
Now the BBC wants everyone to pay. Even if they don't have a TV
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10746109/BBC-wants-you-to-pay-TV-licence-fee-even-if-you-dont-own-a-set-as-shows-go-on-iPlayer-for-longer.html

Lord Hall, the BBC’s director-general, wants to extend the £145.50 annual fee in response to the growing popularity of iPlayer, which enables viewers to watch programmes on home computers, mobile phones and tablet devices.

[Anonymous]

It's a license to own a tv, not to watch it.

Also, in terms of tax dollars and your overall end financial result, you have to also factor in all the things you have to pay out of pocket in the US. Health insurance, vision, dental, hospital fees, prescription meds, higher ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a license to own a tv, not to watch it.

Also, in terms of tax dollars and your overall end financial result, you have to also factor in all the things you have to pay out of pocket in the US. Health insurance, vision, dental, hospital fees, prescription meds, higher ed.

You can own an American TV, that doesn't receive reception, and not have to pay the tax. So you can watch all the Armed Forces Network and videos you want but once you get a region free TV, you have to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a license to own a tv, not to watch it.

Also, in terms of tax dollars and your overall end financial result, you have to also factor in all the things you have to pay out of pocket in the US. Health insurance, vision, dental, hospital fees, prescription meds, higher ed.

You can own an American TV, that doesn't receive reception, and not have to pay the tax. So you can watch all the Armed Forces Network and videos you want but once you get a region free TV, you have to pay.

You have to pay for health care through taxation. There's an NHS tax taken out of every pay check that is as high, if not higher, than the insurance premiums for most plans here. Once you leave London the hospitals and doctors offices aren't great. Even in Oxford.
You do have to pay for dental because most dentists don't accept the NHS plan. In my entire county there was one dentist that did. One. And children and old people don't have to pay for prescriptions but there is a copay (albeit a small one) just like with any other insurance plan.

Private patients care trumps those on the NHS. If an NHS patient books an OR for a knee replacement and a private patient wants the room for the same procedure, guess who gets treated first?