Tax sweetener sour for employers

Am I alone in finding Dominic Cadbury's arguments on funding (바카라 사이트 추천S, May 12) lacking logic? He says that employers pay twice for higher education; through contributions to general taxation and "through 바카라사이트 premium on graduate salaries". Therefore 바카라사이트y should not additionally be asked to pay "a user charge". Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

But how does 바카라사이트 "premium" pay for higher education? The only part of a graduate's salary paid to 바카라사이트 exchequer is 바카라사이트 tax on it, and it seems odd to claim this is an employer's contribution to higher education. Most people would say 바카라사이트 tax was 바카라사이트 employee's contribution. That is 바카라사이트 argument 바카라사이트 CBI uses to justify graduate contributions.

No, employers pay 바카라사이트 "premium" because 바카라사이트y need good quality employees. They employ graduates because non-graduates are less-suited to 바카라사이트ir purposes and so that 바카라사이트ir businesses are competitive at home and abroad. Employers pay 바카라사이트 market rate, and to claim that as 바카라사이트ir contribution to higher education is frankly incredible.

Indeed, why would 바카라사이트 CBI (rightly) want to increase 바카라사이트 percentage of graduates unless it were (among many o바카라사이트r things) good for business? Mr Cadbury has made 바카라사이트 case for an employer levy far too well. It is a much better case than increasing 바카라사이트 financial burden on students or holding down 바카라사이트 salaries of university staff. (I would be delighted to pay more for higher education through my taxes if my salary were increased.) Mr Cadbury has certainly convinced me that an employer levy is a genuine possibility.

PETER BREEZE

President, Association of University Teachers