NEW BRIEFING PAPER
Robin Hood Reversed: How Free Tertiary Education Robs Today’s Poor For Tomorrow’s Rich
29 AUGUST 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The implementation of a zero fees policy for tertiary education would reach into the pockets of the disadvantaged, to line the wallets of the future’s wealthy, according to a briefing paper just published by the Taxpayers' Union.
'Robin Hood Reversed: How Free Tertiary Education Robs Today’s Poor for Tomorrow’s Rich' assesses the impacts of free tertiary education policies, like that announced today by the Labour Party.
Jordan Williams, Executive Director of the Taxpayers' Union said, "We found that similar policies overseas have led to job shortages in crucial areas, and poorer quality courses."
"Contrary to claims that zero tertiary education fees help the poor, in Scottland, which introduced zero fees in the early 2000's, students from low socio-economic groups were the first to be shut out. This contradicts the political ideology of those who advocate for it, because the policy hampers social mobility, and actually increases barriers to reducing inequality."
"The costs of such a policy are borne by low and middle-income earners, to help tomorrow's rich get a free ride."
The briefing paper, Robin Hood Reversed: How Free Tertiary Education Robs Today’s Poor for Tomorrow’s Rich, is available for download at: www.taxpayers.org.nz/robin_hood_reversed.
Hard copies are also available on request.
• Taxpayers already cover 84 percent of the cost of obtaining a tertiary degree.
• The average household currently pays $2,456 in tax per year to fund tertiary education.
• Fully implemented, Labour's proposal would increase that cost by $852.57 per year.
• Low and middle-income earners will pay more to subsidise tomorrow's rich.
• Likely effects of the policy, based on the experience in Scottland with its zero fees policy, include:
o more job shortages in crucial skills-based areas;
o lower quality tertiary education;
o less access to education for students from disadvantaged or low socioeconomic backgrounds; and
o less social mobility and entrenched income inequality.