To think you can’t have your cake and eat it too? University fees

[NoSoapJustUseShowerGel]

Anyone on the What I wish I knew about university page may have noticed a post about “home status” for uni fees today.

Short version - there are several posters who are Brits living abroad complaining that their children will not qualify for home status (and therefore lower fees) at British universities because - guess what - they don’t live here.

Some people are calling it unfair but surely if you make the choice to go and live in another country, this is one of the consequences and you can’t expect to enjoy a benefit meant for residents of a country you don’t live in.

Aibu? I’m not interested in replies with details such as if you can prove you come back regularly you may still qualify, etc etc. Just the overarching principle that if you choose to leave a country, you can’t still expect the same benefits as people who actually live there.

Why should someone who is not resident be entitled to the same treatment as residents? Regardless of whether they’re deemed dependent or independent.

Why should UK tax payers fund people who don’t live here just because they have a British passport? If they want the benefits of residence for themselves or their children they shouldn’t make the choice to emigrate.

YABU many people who live abroad still pay UK taxes. Anyway the rules are pretty clear as to who does and doesn’t get home fees.
What I will say is that once outside the Uk a UK passport is pretty useless in terms of actual help from the UK government- unlike other countries. During Covid it was quite disgraceful. Made me much less interested in being British.

Those who say they pay taxes when then live abroad - how are you paying the equivalent if the VAT you would have paid had you lived in the UK? Are you making voluntary contributions? What about council tax? CGT?

You don’t want this reply but it’s true that a great many expats effectively avoid home fees. Some universities make it much easier than others.

As a Brit living abroad, I don't think it's unfair, but it comes up on those threads not necessarily because we think it's unfair. It's just something that has to be accounted for in planning.

Assuming the university can't fill the space. I am very very fortunate to be working in a department that can fill spaces with overseas at full fees so it doesn't make any sense to take on home students. Taking on home students has recently been referred to as 'giving back' by the university even. So as a bit of charity rather than its core purpose. It's concerning!

You are ignoring the fact that many British people living abroad continue to pay tax at normal, higher and additional rates in the UK. So in many cases they are supporting low paid British residents rather than the other way round.

The thread is about whether it is fair.

many companies move their employees globally. Is it fair that parents who have paid higher rate tax for 25 years but due to THREE years out, their dc doesn’t qualify over a dc whose parents are on benefits who have never worked?

or that children of non British nationals who moved to the UK for only three years and claim this is where they are now resident do qualify for home fees? I personally know many foreign nationals who moved here for work and whose dc went through uni here on the reduced home fees. They, like the British ones who were transferred abroad were only based here a few years and in some cases the parents were only here 4-5 years. The dc started uni as ‘home students’ abs completed their studies whilst the parents had long since left. Some of the dc stayed but most returned to their home country after graduating. One was a medical student. Qualified for home fees. Parents returned home with their job after 4 years. Student continued (had right to remain and once you start on home fees you continue) and once they had done their 5 or 6 years study and worked 2 years of foundation doctor they returned to the US

your flippant ‘every action has consequences’ just isn’t very useful.

yes yes we know the rules but presumably this thread was a discussion about whether the rules were fair.

“this thread was a discussion about whether the rules were fair”

I started this thread off the back of several complaints I’d seen elsewhere from people who’d chosen to emigrate and were complaining that it was unfair their child would no longer get home status for university fees and thought they should because they were British.

I stand by my belief that if you choose to move out of the country it’s not “unfair” that you’re no longer treated the same way as residents.

I think the problem that people have is that people talk as if being resident equaled paying more taxes. Some of us moved abroad at the point at which we had paid more taxes than the average Brit does over their entire life, and never claimed a single benefit. We are net contributors at a rate way above the average.

If nationality doesn't give you any rights at all above and beyond residence, it just doesn't seem like it's worth all that much. If it's about the taxes, why do only the last three years count? Why don't we have lifetime accounts in which we record how much we have paid and how much we have taken from the system, and are only entitled to things if we have contributed enough? Oh, it's because we want to take care of our own. But not if they've been abroad for a few years?

We have a very muddled view of where rights come from just now.

So instead of addressing the valid points about many non residents being UK tax payers and the significance of nationality rather than residence, you stand by your belief that residence is more important. You need to explain why you believe this.

Why is it fairer that relatively new arrivals, non British citizens, are entitled to home fees for their children regardless of whether they have contributed a single penny to the UK and unfair that British citizens resident abroad who have and continue to pay taxes are not?

Do you place any value on citizenship rather than residence? Any value on those who pay in rather than take out?

You mean refugees?

It's totally fair that families who have chosen not to live in the UK should have to pay overseas fees. I have never understood why people think they should have the right to access home fees purely on the basis of nationality. Clearly, they haven't been contributing, so why should they?

There are plenty of provisions in place for those who can demonstrate that their absence from the UK is only temporary and that they have remained ordinarily resident.

The only thing I would change is to make it a standard assessment that applies across the country - it shouldn't be left to the universities to assess as that just leads to a bit of a lottery, which isn't fair.

If people have continued to pay UK taxes, it's likely that they would meet the ordinary residence requirements in any case.

Parents who are being moved around by their employers on global mobility contracts will typically be able to demonstrate that they have maintained "ordinary residence", and as such, they will meet the criteria for home fees.

For people who moved to the EU pre-Brexit, the goal posts have changed.

The UK has a massive racket going on “international” uni fees though. Those Brits should just go and study for virtually free in eg Germany, that will offer and attract young educated persons from all over the world. The way the demographics are going, I do not think it is in our best interests long term to prevent Brits from studying here at a reasonable rate. Perhaps they should have a third tier for those with British passports. Most other successful countries are trying to hold onto their educated citizens abroad and are growing keeping in touch with them, not the opposite.

I think it is fair they do not qualify for the loans, but I think it is madness to not try and entice young Brits back into the country when we need every young educated worker we can get.

I think the problem is that different universities apply the rules differently. There is no consistency.
Our kids eventually decided to study in the US and Switzerland despite having attended school in UK.
Another contribution to the UK Exchequer.

The problem with the UK at the moment is that it is slowly boiling the tax paying frog. Some wealthy have already left and are taking their money with them - hence RR’s heralded attempt to tax wealth leaving the country. Many young, talented and ambitious people are moving to lower tax regimes which appreciate the contributions made by global talent - further depleting the tax base.

A country is a bit like a club. Everyone pays in while they can and people take out at various stages of their lives. Scare off, or demotivate, those who are paying in and the amount available to take out drops.

I agree that there is an issue with consistency. Hence my suggestion that the assessment process should be centralised.

Blimey where is this amazing place.

This isn’t new. We moved back to the UK in the late ‘80’s so my sister could do her A levels, take a year out and then go to medical school. My dad left the UK in his twenties.

Most expats avoid paying home fees.

Yes, ds had home fees status as Dh’s contract showed that he was on secondment and was still employed in the UK.

If your parents aren't paying tax in this country or resident in this country then I think it's fair.
Although on flip side I have known parents to move abroad, when DC were teens, much to their DCs distress, DC hated it, so I can see why the students themselves would think that's unfair.
No rule is perfect.
Perhaps rule should be students would have to have lived here for x number of years and not just be a British citizen