All this talk of a "tax on aspiration" really does my head in. It's utter nonsense. Are people seriously suggesting that the 7% who have the privilege of private education are aspirational for their kids, but the remaining 93% aren't? Or that the 93% who don't go private are sitting around resenting the fact that they can't afford it?
So for what it's worth here's my "aspiration". That as a nation we choose to spend as much money as we can afford on a brilliant, high-quality state education system in which every single kid, whatever their background, can benefit from superb teaching and an excellent curriculum designed to maximise each student's achievements and help them to reach whatever role they aspire to.
That's real aspiration. And there isn't a touch of class envy in it.
Fine, what do you want to cut to pay for it, or which taxes will you raise, and don't give me small numbers, this needs £40bn of additional money there's no "tax on the rich" that would pay for it. I'm all for cutting other spending to do it, are you?
Despite Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement last week—in the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s decision—that her Government would treat the next UK General Election as a “de facto referendum” on independence, only 29% of respondents cite Scottish Independence/The Union as one of the three issues that would most determine their vote if a General Election was held tomorrow. Even among likely SNP voters Scottish Independence is only the third most commonly selected issue (50%) behind the NHS (62%) and the economy (72%).
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I would be surprised if this led to a significant drop in the numbers privately educated. I think much more likely that a) private schools will partly eat the cost change b) parents will spend more c) parents will shift down to cheaper private schools.
Difficult to eat costs when you are a non-profit. There's Eton and perhaps two other schools that could do it out of endowments.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
Rather than VAT on private education, just charge an addition 5% income tax to all those privately educated.
If you assume that a private education gets you a better job and thereby puts you into a higher tax bracket then that's precisely what is happening now.
Christmas party at The Ivy, Covent Garden. But I went to a Chrimbo party yesterday at La Fromagerie, Marylebone
Go or not go? Am a bit knacked
Next to the flat where the murderer lived in Hitchcock's Frenzy. Sorry for spoilers. Yes, go. You can always duck out early and get a cab home if you are flagging.
You're right. I'm being a pussy. I spent the entirety of winter 2021 yearning for Xmas parties, when everything was shut, and now here I am lamenting that I have 2 in a row
It's the new Covid mentality again. STAY HOME. Pathetic
I empathise.
Steeling myself up for our book club Christmas dinner tomorrow night at the pub (3 courses + mince pies and crackers) - first in three years. Might be a late one - 10:30pm even.
Rather than VAT on private education, just charge an addition 5% income tax to all those privately educated.
If you assume that a private education gets you a better job and thereby puts you into a higher tax bracket then that's precisely what is happening now.
Yeah but as you got an unfair leg-up, you can pay extra.
Christmas party at The Ivy, Covent Garden. But I went to a Chrimbo party yesterday at La Fromagerie, Marylebone
Go or not go? Am a bit knacked
Next to the flat where the murderer lived in Hitchcock's Frenzy. Sorry for spoilers. Yes, go. You can always duck out early and get a cab home if you are flagging.
You're right. I'm being a pussy. I spent the entirety of winter 2021 yearning for Xmas parties, when everything was shut, and now here I am lamenting that I have 2 in a row
It's the new Covid mentality again. STAY HOME. Pathetic
We all grow old. A mug of Ovaltine and the pussy* on the lap in the armchair has its attractions more and more compared to raving it up in some converted warehouse. Though The Ivy itself looks nice.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
That means even more VAT revenue. Do you honestly think that there will be a 30% drop in numbers at private school?
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Worth pausing to think why that's so.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
Why can't they cut costs if they're teaching few pupils?
Christmas party at The Ivy, Covent Garden. But I went to a Chrimbo party yesterday at La Fromagerie, Marylebone
Go or not go? Am a bit knacked
Next to the flat where the murderer lived in Hitchcock's Frenzy. Sorry for spoilers. Yes, go. You can always duck out early and get a cab home if you are flagging.
You're right. I'm being a pussy. I spent the entirety of winter 2021 yearning for Xmas parties, when everything was shut, and now here I am lamenting that I have 2 in a row
It's the new Covid mentality again. STAY HOME. Pathetic
I empathise.
Steeling myself up for our book club Christmas dinner tomorrow night at the pub (3 courses + mince pies and crackers) - first in three years. Might be a late one - 10:30pm even.
I have been out four out of the last five nights and I'm absolutely shattered.
I yearn for the Covid days when I went out twice a year.
Actually I'm just out of practice but the lure of the mini-series has become seriously persuasive.
Most here are rich enough to move to a good state school area, I wonder if they know how a failing state school looks to a child. One where if you want to learn it makes you a target for bullies because there parents teach them being in anyway intellectual is shit.
I went to school in the 80's I experienced in a class my bag with all my notes for o levels being doused in lighter fluid and set light too. The teacher merely looked up and said "Guys put it out". From what my son tells me things are much worse now
Rather than VAT on private education, just charge an addition 5% income tax to all those privately educated.
If you assume that a private education gets you a better job and thereby puts you into a higher tax bracket then that's precisely what is happening now.
Yeah but as you got an unfair leg-up, you can pay extra.
The government will earn a fuckload from VAT on Uni tuition fees
That will be the trick: charge VAT on school fees without adding VAT to university tuition fees, which currently are covered by the same exemption.
Not many private universities.
Not many (or any) free universities. They all charge but they don't charge VAT because there is a blanket exemption for education, the same one that shelters public schools.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
That means even more VAT revenue. Do you honestly think that there will be a 30% drop in numbers at private school?
Not accross the board. Certain schools are probably not price sensitive (a giffin good), but the small private schools, particularly non London and prep schools, are likely to suffer.
It would also reduce the numbers of foreign students comming to the UK as they would need to pay VAT as well. That would impact certain schools who rely on them for funding.
I would expect a number of schools to go under, others will survive.
Not all private schools are charities; private equity has recently been investing in the sector.
It's not news that Twitter and Facebook squashed the Hunter Biden Laptop story under the guise of it being Fake News, as they thought it might affect votes.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
That means even more VAT revenue. Do you honestly think that there will be a 30% drop in numbers at private school?
It hasn't so far. This was a two second Google search, so it's somewhat out of date, but it confirmed my suspicion.
The long view is that independent school fees have being going for a "pitch for as much as we can get away with charging" model for a couple of decades. Either the institutions or the clients can and will swallow the increased costs.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
That means even more VAT revenue. Do you honestly think that there will be a 30% drop in numbers at private school?
They can't afford the drop. Either they close down or increase the intake of rich Chinese students (who, insult to injury, presumably get the VAT back).
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Worth pausing to think why that's so.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
My theory is that the rot set in with Big Bang (not that Big Bang, although there is a case to say it was all downhill from there).
Previously, bankers had been like doctors, lawyers, headmasters, etc - earning a decent salary sure but nothing outrageous. Big Bang and the arrival of the American investment banks changed all that. They imported global (often US and expensive) talent, and elevated banking salaries for them and previous British stockbrokers to the stratosphere. With that came a huge effect on house prices in prime London and thereby all of London for one; and competition for many other goods and services of which education was a primary one.
Not sure how trickle down any of it was but it marked the divide between Wall Street and Main Street that continues to cause problems today.
The government will earn a fuckload from VAT on Uni tuition fees
That will be the trick: charge VAT on school fees without adding VAT to university tuition fees, which currently are covered by the same exemption.
Not many private universities.
Not many (or any) free universities. They all charge but they don't charge VAT because there is a blanket exemption for education, the same one that shelters public schools.
Quite, but unis used to be free (mostly) - at least when I were young. And that VAT exemption was there then I seem to recall.
Also, quite easy to divide between secondary and tertiary education, one would think - if it's a course that comes under the UFC or whatever it is called now, and so on. Everything else, gets the VAT.
There has been a parallel debate about rates relief in Scotland, BTW. Have to go off and finish a job, but this weill give the nugget.
'The judiciary, for instance, should surely reflect society much better.'
No. It doesn't need to reflect society. It needs to be qualified and respected; utterly impartial.
Don't the two go together? Everything about the judicial system is supposed to ensure that the scales are balanced evenly including being judged by a jury of 'your peers'. There have been too many historical examples where 'Your Peers' was defined incorrectly as 'Your Betters' Your Peers means your equals. People like you.
Eh?
Juries are your peers.
Judges are judges. They need to be expert. Very well educated etc etc
Can someone recommend a fuel poverty to donate to?
My father has received his £500 allowance today and wants to see it put to some good for those who really need it.
Trussell trust is my default. Some smart arse is likely to point out that they run food banks, but numerous studies have shown that people who like not to starve also like not to freeze, and v.v.
Can someone recommend a fuel poverty to donate to?
My father has received his £500 allowance today and wants to see it put to some good for those who really need it.
Most if not all local areas have a Surviving Winter Fund such as this one in Dorset, funded by winter fuel payments received by those who do not need it.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
Can someone recommend a fuel poverty to donate to?
My father has received his £500 allowance today and wants to see it put to some good for those who really need it.
Most if not all local areas have a Surviving Winter Fund such as this one in Dorset, funded by winter fuel payments received by those who do not need it.
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Lockdown has turned us into a nation of hoodie-wearing stay-at-homes. Fearful and anxious. This feeds into a loss of aspiration, people prefer security and a nice cuppa, and they want the state to provide this
However, this is a worldwide phenomenon. See the Japanese and the Thais still 100% wearing masks OUTSIDE
Covid has made the world statist, even communist. Perhaps that was China's fiendish plan all along. Tho it doesn't seem to be panning out too well for them, either
Are they making foreign tourists wear masks outside in Thailand?
Can someone recommend a fuel poverty to donate to?
My father has received his £500 allowance today and wants to see it put to some good for those who really need it.
Trussell trust is my default. Some smart arse is likely to point out that they run food banks, but numerous studies have shown that people who like not to starve also like not to freeze, and v.v.
Indeed. Food banks often cover other things than food anyway. And what a lot of people take from a food bank is critically affected by how much they have to pay for energy. So forget the sort of recipes that take 2hr to cook.
All this talk of a "tax on aspiration" really does my head in. It's utter nonsense. Are people seriously suggesting that the 7% who have the privilege of private education are aspirational for their kids, but the remaining 93% aren't? Or that the 93% who don't go private are sitting around resenting the fact that they can't afford it?
So for what it's worth here's my "aspiration". That as a nation we choose to spend as much money as we can afford on a brilliant, high-quality state education system in which every single kid, whatever their background, can benefit from superb teaching and an excellent curriculum designed to maximise each student's achievements and help them to reach whatever role they aspire to.
That's real aspiration. And there isn't a touch of class envy in it.
Fine, what do you want to cut to pay for it, or which taxes will you raise, and don't give me small numbers, this needs £40bn of additional money there's no "tax on the rich" that would pay for it. I'm all for cutting other spending to do it, are you?
Not sure where you've got the £40bn from. But this country is awash with money - we're a very rich country. There's no need to tax the rich much more if you mean income tax, but there's oodles of wealth out there, held by business and individuals that can be taxed. Heck, even if they could get hold of all the money lost to Covid fraud and PPE scandals they'd have way over that. I'd start with Lady Mone, then move on to Mrs Sunak, and then..... Although I'm far from rich, I'd happily pay a bit more.
Of course the response will be that the wealth creators will take their bats home. Well, the wealth creators and those on the highest incomes have done exceptionally well over the last 50 years, but there hasn't been a concomitant rise in the nation's productivity - they've just lined their pockets.
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Lockdown has turned us into a nation of hoodie-wearing stay-at-homes. Fearful and anxious. This feeds into a loss of aspiration, people prefer security and a nice cuppa, and they want the state to provide this
However, this is a worldwide phenomenon. See the Japanese and the Thais still 100% wearing masks OUTSIDE
Covid has made the world statist, even communist. Perhaps that was China's fiendish plan all along. Tho it doesn't seem to be panning out too well for them, either
Are they making foreign tourists wear masks outside in Thailand?
No, the farangs don't wear masks. But EVERYONE ELSE DOES. Or so I am told
The problem with (for example) the Judiciary being representative of the population is how do you determine what is the right representation? We need well educated intelligent people in these positions, but regardless of whether the population is intelligent, they need to be educated properly in order to make use of their intelligence. If the chances of a good education are better at a private school, then it stands to reason that a person from that educational background is going to be better at important jobs like the Judiciary, hence the people needed for those roles are going to be drawn more from that pool. Reducing the private education sector is not going to massively increase the educational chances of those in the state sector because even if you redeploy those private resources, the dilution of them, being spread far and wide, is going to mean little to the students who take advantage of them.
Simply putting VAT on school fees will do little other than salve the hearts of those who believe in their class hatred. It won't raise enough to make a meaningful difference, it's likely to deter those (like my parents) who spend everything they have on private education for their kids (because, like my parents, they see the hopeless state of the local comprehensive). It just taxes them twice, for many it will ultimately force all but the most elitist of students out of private education, and condemns State schools, whose resources are already stretched thin, to having to accomodate more pupils and thereby have even less money to spend per pupil rather than more.
TL;DR: Private education actually SAVES the State money. Labour are fighting the wrong war here. If they can actually count, they know it, but they think the politics of envy trumps actual numbers.
Christmas party at The Ivy, Covent Garden. But I went to a Chrimbo party yesterday at La Fromagerie, Marylebone
Go or not go? Am a bit knacked
Next to the flat where the murderer lived in Hitchcock's Frenzy. Sorry for spoilers. Yes, go. You can always duck out early and get a cab home if you are flagging.
You're right. I'm being a pussy. I spent the entirety of winter 2021 yearning for Xmas parties, when everything was shut, and now here I am lamenting that I have 2 in a row
It's the new Covid mentality again. STAY HOME. Pathetic
We all grow old. A mug of Ovaltine and the pussy* on the lap in the armchair has its attractions more and more compared to raving it up in some converted warehouse. Though The Ivy itself looks nice.
*Feline variety, just to avoid any confusion.
The Ivy Covent Garden is indeed nice. It's the original one
So it will be proper fizz and pukka canapes. And a little sprinkle of famous people, I think (not me, obvs)
I will do an hour then steal away into the night, back to my calm and orderly flat, where I shall not repine
I feel that there is a better way of working with private schools that involves obliging them to take children out of the care system. It costs more than an Eton education to put a child through the care system, and all it results in is that they have more kids that they can't cope with and they in turn go through the care system. Give the public schools a crack - get them to take on a proportion of these kids to maintain their charitable status. Make them earn it. That improves the reputation of public schools, offers a societal benefit, and saves taxpayers' money.
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Worth pausing to think why that's so.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
My theory is that the rot set in with Big Bang (not that Big Bang, although there is a case to say it was all downhill from there).
Previously, bankers had been like doctors, lawyers, headmasters, etc - earning a decent salary sure but nothing outrageous. Big Bang and the arrival of the American investment banks changed all that. They imported global (often US and expensive) talent, and elevated banking salaries for them and previous British stockbrokers to the stratosphere. With that came a huge effect on house prices in prime London and thereby all of London for one; and competition for many other goods and services of which education was a primary one.
Not sure how trickle down any of it was but it marked the divide between Wall Street and Main Street that continues to cause problems today.
That makes a lot of sense. Those professional people are still doing pretty well, but a salary of £75,000 pa or so doesn't allow you to pay £20,000 a year on school fees, out of after-tax income, without cutting back on everything else.
To tick all the boxes of the job description, as defined by the Conservatives, you have to be a serial liar, a philanderer, an incompetant blusterer, living in fiscal la-la land, someone who has never held down a top level outside of politics, and much more of the same ilk.
So I would have to join those answering No to that question.
The fall of crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried has been painted as a big blow to the Democratic party, whose candidates were major beneficiaries of his largesse. But in a new interview, Bankman-Fried has claimed he gave equally large amounts of money to Republicans.
“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
IMO, a Labour government would probably appeal to a lot of people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Labour looks like it can gain seats in Scotland, that will probably generate its own momentum.
Frankly I think the Tories would take that result for Scotland right now. Theresa May was a real highpoint for them (not necessarily on her personal merit).
The fall of crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried has been painted as a big blow to the Democratic party, whose candidates were major beneficiaries of his largesse. But in a new interview, Bankman-Fried has claimed he gave equally large amounts of money to Republicans.
“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
IMO, a Labour government would probably appeal to a lot of people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Labour looks like it can gain seats in Scotland, that will probably generate its own momentum.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
It was on old lady from the palace who was threatening Meg?
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
It doesn't really alter the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are spoiled airheads.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it, is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
It is anti aspirations and outside of the Etons of this world there are many private schools who contribute to their community with use of their facilities and of course bursaries
Ending charity status is likely to see the loss of these advantages and also children leaving and adding to the state sector
I expect in this climate it will help Labour but you only need to see just how many Labour mps were privately educated themselves or their children to realise the hypocrisy in this policy
I went to a public school. My personal experience is one of the reasons I’d like to see them closed down.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
I haven't read this story, but does this mean the famous racist comment wasn't even made by an actual Royal?
IMO, a Labour government would probably appeal to a lot of people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Labour looks like it can gain seats in Scotland, that will probably generate its own momentum.
Yes, I agree
I reckon this is going to be a step-change election in Scotland as much as England
In England people yearn to give the Tories a revenge kicking, I reckon in Scotland quite a lot of people - independence aside - are quietly contemptuous of the rotten SNP, and will seize a chance to thump them. But they need a credible alternative. If Labour appear to be that, then Labour will seriously prosper north of Hadrian's
Sturgeon's ridiculous contortions on the GRA don't help, either. She is the SNP's main electoral asset but all this Wokery damages her
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Worth pausing to think why that's so.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
My theory is that the rot set in with Big Bang (not that Big Bang, although there is a case to say it was all downhill from there).
Previously, bankers had been like doctors, lawyers, headmasters, etc - earning a decent salary sure but nothing outrageous. Big Bang and the arrival of the American investment banks changed all that. They imported global (often US and expensive) talent, and elevated banking salaries for them and previous British stockbrokers to the stratosphere. With that came a huge effect on house prices in prime London and thereby all of London for one; and competition for many other goods and services of which education was a primary one.
Not sure how trickle down any of it was but it marked the divide between Wall Street and Main Street that continues to cause problems today.
That makes a lot of sense. Those professional people are still doing pretty well, but a salary of £75,000 pa or so doesn't allow you to pay £20,000 a year on school fees, out of after-tax income, without cutting back on everything else.
IMO, a Labour government would probably appeal to a lot of people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Labour looks like it can gain seats in Scotland, that will probably generate its own momentum.
Yes, I agree
I reckon this is going to be a step-change election in Scotland as much as England
In England people yearn to give the Tories a revenge kicking, I reckon in Scotland quite a lot of people - independence aside - are quietly contemptuous of the rotten SNP, and will seize a chance to thump them. But they need a credible alternative. If Labour appear to be that, then Labour will seriously prosper north of Hadrian's
Sturgeon's ridiculous contortions on the GRA don't help, either. She is the SNP's main electoral asset but all this Wokery damages her
The Conservatives could never hope, even in the best of circumstances, to win more than 30% in Scotland. Labour could potentially do much better than that.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
The fall of crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried has been painted as a big blow to the Democratic party, whose candidates were major beneficiaries of his largesse. But in a new interview, Bankman-Fried has claimed he gave equally large amounts of money to Republicans.
“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
I haven't read this story, but does this mean the famous racist comment wasn't even made by an actual Royal?
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Worth pausing to think why that's so.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
My theory is that the rot set in with Big Bang (not that Big Bang, although there is a case to say it was all downhill from there).
Previously, bankers had been like doctors, lawyers, headmasters, etc - earning a decent salary sure but nothing outrageous. Big Bang and the arrival of the American investment banks changed all that. They imported global (often US and expensive) talent, and elevated banking salaries for them and previous British stockbrokers to the stratosphere. With that came a huge effect on house prices in prime London and thereby all of London for one; and competition for many other goods and services of which education was a primary one.
Not sure how trickle down any of it was but it marked the divide between Wall Street and Main Street that continues to cause problems today.
That makes a lot of sense. Those professional people are still doing pretty well, but a salary of £75,000 pa or so doesn't allow you to pay £20,000 a year on school fees, out of after-tax income, without cutting back on everything else.
Where are these 20k a year bargains to be had?
There seems to be quite a few charging c.20k pa for day pupils across North London and Hertfordshire. Obviously, boarding would be far more expensive.
Comments
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum--westminster-voting-intention-26-27-november-2022/
All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances.
Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
·
16m
BREAKING: Elon Musk confirms that Twitter has interfered with elections.
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1598006194266058754?s=20&t=yMq5etKM_HHq5BK5kalciw
If he has proof and is willing to furnish it....
Steeling myself up for our book club Christmas dinner tomorrow night at the pub (3 courses + mince pies and crackers) - first in three years. Might be a late one - 10:30pm even.
*Feline variety, just to avoid any confusion.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
I yearn for the Covid days when I went out twice a year.
Actually I'm just out of practice but the lure of the mini-series has become seriously persuasive.
I went to school in the 80's I experienced in a class my bag with all my notes for o levels being doused in lighter fluid and set light too. The teacher merely looked up and said "Guys put it out". From what my son tells me things are much worse now
It would also reduce the numbers of foreign students comming to the UK as they would need to pay VAT as well. That would impact certain schools who rely on them for funding.
I would expect a number of schools to go under, others will survive.
Not all private schools are charities; private equity has recently been investing in the sector.
The long view is that independent school fees have being going for a "pitch for as much as we can get away with charging" model for a couple of decades. Either the institutions or the clients can and will swallow the increased costs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-charts-that-shows-how-private-school-fees-have-exploded-a7023056.html?amp
Charging VAT on private schools will damage the education sector as a whole and raise nothing for the exchequer.
Do it expect it to happen anyway? Yes.
Previously, bankers had been like doctors, lawyers, headmasters, etc - earning a decent salary sure but nothing outrageous. Big Bang and the arrival of the American investment banks changed all that. They imported global (often US and expensive) talent, and elevated banking salaries for them and previous British stockbrokers to the stratosphere. With that came a huge effect on house prices in prime London and thereby all of London for one; and competition for many other goods and services of which education was a primary one.
Not sure how trickle down any of it was but it marked the divide between Wall Street and Main Street that continues to cause problems today.
Also, quite easy to divide between secondary and tertiary education, one would think - if it's a course that comes under the UFC or whatever it is called now, and so on. Everything else, gets the VAT.
There has been a parallel debate about rates relief in Scotland, BTW. Have to go off and finish a job, but this weill give the nugget.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/need-know-scottish-private-schools-and-rates-relief
Can someone recommend a fuel poverty to donate to?
My father has received his £500 allowance today and wants to see it put to some good for those who really need it.
Juries are your peers.
Judges are judges. They need to be expert. Very well educated etc etc
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1598000418428456962?t=1m0cbrhg5GfkHONr5rGOoA&s=19
@LeftieStats
·
2h
📊 Does Starmer look like a PM-in-waiting?
✅ HE DOES ~ 34% (-4)
❌ HE DOES NOT ~ 43% (-)
Via
@YouGov
, 28 Nov (+/- since 31 Oct)"
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats
Or a local food bank (the effect is much the same, obviously)?
Edit: make sure he signs the gift aid.
Should they be taxed if privately run?
https://www.dorsetcommunityfoundation.org/appeals/surviving-winter/
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
Of course the response will be that the wealth creators will take their bats home. Well, the wealth creators and those on the highest incomes have done exceptionally well over the last 50 years, but there hasn't been a concomitant rise in the nation's productivity - they've just lined their pockets.
Simply putting VAT on school fees will do little other than salve the hearts of those who believe in their class hatred. It won't raise enough to make a meaningful difference, it's likely to deter those (like my parents) who spend everything they have on private education for their kids (because, like my parents, they see the hopeless state of the local comprehensive). It just taxes them twice, for many it will ultimately force all but the most elitist of students out of private education, and condemns State schools, whose resources are already stretched thin, to having to accomodate more pupils and thereby have even less money to spend per pupil rather than more.
TL;DR: Private education actually SAVES the State money. Labour are fighting the wrong war here. If they can actually count, they know it, but they think the politics of envy trumps actual numbers.
Sorts out debts into manageable payment plans, and deals with all correspondence.
The aim should be to expand access to such schools which the scholarships and bursaries charitable status helps fund does
So it will be proper fizz and pukka canapes. And a little sprinkle of famous people, I think (not me, obvs)
I will do an hour then steal away into the night, back to my calm and orderly flat, where I shall not repine
They must be music to Starmer and the labour party who I believe are in a near certain position to win in 24
SNP: 32 (-16)
LAB: 19 (+18)
LDM: 5 (+1)
CON: 3 (-3)
They imply Labour were on 1, before. 1 point
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1598003993317343245?t=gsf1EiW0fabP1bDklkWZ3g&s=19
So I would have to join those answering No to that question.
And yes those are excellent numbers for Starmer
“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billionaire-sam-bankman-fried-dark-money-republicans
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
£12,000 matched.
£2,000 on a Labour win at 1.01
£10,000 on a Tory win, also at 1.01
Expensive finger problem?
"the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong"
Is she hot? I want her to be really hot
https://twitter.com/TiffanyFong_/photo
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/30/buckingham-palace-aide-resigns-black-guest-traumatised-by-repeated-questioning
I reckon this is going to be a step-change election in Scotland as much as England
In England people yearn to give the Tories a revenge kicking, I reckon in Scotland quite a lot of people - independence aside - are quietly contemptuous of the rotten SNP, and will seize a chance to thump them. But they need a credible alternative. If Labour appear to be that, then Labour will seriously prosper north of Hadrian's
Sturgeon's ridiculous contortions on the GRA don't help, either. She is the SNP's main electoral asset but all this Wokery damages her
For one joyous moment I thought there had been a poll in Scotland with Labour on 1
Remember that somewhere, out there, is a girl called Tiffany Fong
Well, maybe.