On the upside, here's some good news about the UK economy, at last. I know we all need a pep up in these dark times
The Knappers' Gazette have told me they're sending me to a brand new hotel in the Maldives to try "the best scuba diving in the world", in late September. Eight days all exes paid, 5 star and whatnot
So don't be down in the dumps, guys. Enough of the misery guts and Oh Woe. Things really ARE beginning to improve, if hotels and tour ops can afford to do the full on Free Luxury Travel once again. I sense we are turning the corner, there is a brightness to the east
And let's see some smiling faces, shall we, as we all share in this positive news
Er, it's the mention of the Maldives that plunges me into depression again. Bad enough with the insects. And now this ...
"With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world."
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
It's curious to read these comments -- since there is no similar debate in the US. Instead, there are long-standing arguments about "charter schools":
"Charter schools in the United States are primary or secondary education institutions that are public schools which are publicly funded and operate independently, rather than being overseen by local school districts. Charter schools have a contract with local school districts or other authorizing bodies which allow them to operate. These contracts, or charters, are how charters schools bear their name. They are funded with public tax dollars, though they also fundraise independently. Charter schools are subject to fewer rules than traditional state schools in exchange for greater accountability. Proponents argue that they are meant to serve underserved communities that wish to have alternatives to their neighborhood school. Charters are run as either non-profit or for-profit institutions. However, there are some for-profit management organizations that hold charters, though these are only allowed in Arizona.[2] Only non-profit charters can receive donations from private sources, just the same as traditional public schools.[3]
As of 2016–2017 there were an estimated 6,900 public charter schools in 42 states and the District of Columbia with approximately 3.1 million students, a sixfold increase in enrollment over the past 15 years." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States
Full disclosure: In general, I favor charter schools -- but I recognize that they are not suitable for most rural areas.
(If you are interested in education in the United States, you should read this site from time to time: https://www.joannejacobs.com/ Jacobs is very smart, and very well-informed on American education.)
I posted this yesterday, but although it got some pushback I didn't really see any compelling argument against it.
It is supported by various precedents, notably the disendowment of the Church of Ireland (1869) and the Church in Wales (1920) when it was held the money they had raised should go to the nation rather than a private organisation. And it is worth remembering at this point that 'public' schools were so called because they were meant to be open to the public.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
And look at the damage that did to those churches. The Church in Wales just a shadow of its former self for example. Indeed more Welsh are Roman Catholic or Methodist now than Anglican and in Ireland more Catholic or Presbyterian than Anglican too
That's a joke, right?
He made the same joke about Scotland in an argument with me a year or two back - don't know if you saw it. Apparently the disestablishment of the C of S means that Scotland is at rist of being excessively influenced by the RC Church, but England is protected from such a fate by the Establishment of the C of E.
Not sure where the punchline comes, mind.
There has never really been an established church in Scotland but the Church of Scotland is effectively the Scottish established church, attended by the monarch.
The Church of Scotland has a £515.8m portfolio of land and endowments too, ie more than most Oxbridge colleges and public schools
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
But it will mean we have a set of middle class parents determined that their children are taught well who will also be able to put pressure on schools to ensure that the schools improve.
No you wont because those middle class parents will also be making sure their kids attend schools that are already good. All it might mean is good state schools get better via donations while the poor will find they are full when they try and get their kids in. I firmly believe that it will actually make educational inequality worse not better.
On the upside, here's some good news about the UK economy, at last. I know we all need a pep up in these dark times
The Knappers' Gazette have told me they're sending me to a brand new hotel in the Maldives to try "the best scuba diving in the world", in late September. Eight days all exes paid, 5 star and whatnot
So don't be down in the dumps, guys. Enough of the misery guts and Oh Woe. Things really ARE beginning to improve, if hotels and tour ops can afford to do the full on Free Luxury Travel once again. I sense we are turning the corner, there is a brightness to the east
And let's see some smiling faces, shall we, as we all share in this positive news
Er, it's the mention of the Maldives that plunges me into depression again. Bad enough with the insects. And now this ...
"With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world."
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Much of Alien was Dan O'Bannon. Having previously written Dark Star (a brilliant film that sadly bombed) he decided that if he couldn't make a Sci FI film to make people laugh he would make one to scare the bejesus out of them. Hence Alien.
The real issue with Starmer's policy - or mine, for that matter - is, how do you word the change so that you get private schools but not universities? Which are technically with I think two exceptions private charitable foundations - charging fees.
I believe universities are universities, their own separate category.
Nobody in my immediate, or extended, family was privately educated - not now, nor in the past. We have all been pretty successful in life, in a variety of different ways. We were all comprehensively educated, apart from handful of oldies who started out in grammar schools. The state schools that my kids, and all my relatives, attended have been great.
Conclusion: I get pretty pissed off with the view held by so many on here that state comprehensive schools aren't good enough for their precious kids. Most state schools do a fabulous job. A minority aren't good enough, and that needs fixing. But a minority of private schools are also pretty poor.
Me too. I am one of three sibs all completely State educated and all with top flight careers.
I reckon that I benefitted tremendously from the wide variety of backgrounds of my school friends and classmates.
On this subject of charitable status PB BTL is a mile away from public opinion. Its a bit like hearing some Rupert complain of the cost of keeping a nanny or their holiday cottage.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
I went to a sink comp, my wife went to a high-achieving private school. We've ended up in roughly the same place.
I'm not sure what that says or what you can extrapolate from it. But it doesn't sell private education to me, even if we could afford it.
There are studies showing that if you adjust for the relatively advantaged intake the independent sector achieves similar results to the state sector. If true this would mean private schools underperform on a vfm basis since their per pupil spend is higher.
No doubt the vfm in state schools is better if you measure purely by results, but that's because a lot of what you pay for at private schools goes on non-academic things it's difficult to quantify - out of school opportunities, pleasant surroundings, pastoral care, not getting stabbed, etc.
We're in the lucky position that our oldest two have got into relatively good secondary schools. But there's no doubt that there are lots of bad state schools which I would happily put off retirement for seven years in order to go private to avoid. I want my kids to do more than get good grades: I want them to enjoy their school years. Or at least not hate them.
I could easily have afforded to send both my kids to private school, but I thought Nah, fuck it, spend it on ME, and it's generally turned out fine, so there's a noble lesson there
Serious point here.
A lot of the commentary on terrible state schools is based on experiences from 20-30 years ago. There are lots of problems with the state system (and they will get worse unless someone pays teachers enough to get them to stay and spends enough stopping the buildings falling down) but the truly terrible schools, the ones overrun with gang warfare where nobody learns anything don't really exist in any numbers any more. They used to, but it's almost impossible for a school to get away with being that shoddy for long now. Ofsted and academisation have seen to that. Even in RI schools, the bread and butter teaching will be learn-from-able.
(Disclosure: I was briefly a governor at The Wost School In The County. I wouldn't have chosen it for my children, but we had moved to the area temporarily, and everywhere else was full. There was a lot wrong with it, but they haven't suffered as a result.)
There are exceptions, especially for children with special needs, where state provision collapses because demand is so much higher than supply. But most children will end up with the same grades wherever they go. (Don't believe me? Look at the Progress 8 scores- not many schools add more than half a grade per subject at GCSE, not many subtract more than half a grade.)
So if you have money, spend it on enrichment and networking. Take them to museums and lectures. Send them to summer schools. That's the stuff that state teachers can't do, because they don't have the spare time, because they're delivering an OK education on about half the budget of private schools.
And if you have the ability to go into a local school and do a workshop on public speaking, or engineering, or journalism or whatever, most schools would be incredibly grateful. Not all, but most. Whatever else you think of Peston, he had the right idea with https://www.speakersforschools.org/
Oh, and well done to the staff at [REDACTED] who do a blooming good job under the circumstances at both the bread and butter and the enrichment. And it isn't a grammar school.
On the upside, here's some good news about the UK economy, at last. I know we all need a pep up in these dark times
The Knappers' Gazette have told me they're sending me to a brand new hotel in the Maldives to try "the best scuba diving in the world", in late September. Eight days all exes paid, 5 star and whatnot
So don't be down in the dumps, guys. Enough of the misery guts and Oh Woe. Things really ARE beginning to improve, if hotels and tour ops can afford to do the full on Free Luxury Travel once again. I sense we are turning the corner, there is a brightness to the east
And let's see some smiling faces, shall we, as we all share in this positive news
Galapagos and Marquesas for me, next January. Downside is I haven't dived for 10 years and I think I need to do a refresher course somewhere horrible like Southampton this summer.
I posted this yesterday, but although it got some pushback I didn't really see any compelling argument against it.
It is supported by various precedents, notably the disendowment of the Church of Ireland (1869) and the Church in Wales (1920) when it was held the money they had raised should go to the nation rather than a private organisation. And it is worth remembering at this point that 'public' schools were so called because they were meant to be open to the public.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
And look at the damage that did to those churches. The Church in Wales just a shadow of its former self for example. Indeed more Welsh are Roman Catholic or Methodist now than Anglican and in Ireland more Catholic or Presbyterian than Anglican too
That's a joke, right?
He made the same joke about Scotland in an argument with me a year or two back - don't know if you saw it. Apparently the disestablishment of the C of S means that Scotland is at rist of being excessively influenced by the RC Church, but England is protected from such a fate by the Establishment of the C of E.
Not sure where the punchline comes, mind.
There has never really been an established church in Scotland but the Church of Scotland is effectively the Scottish established church, attended by the monarch.
The Church of Scotland has a £515.8m portfolio of land and endowments too, ie more than most Oxbridge colleges and public schools
I think you have this king business the wrong way round. In Scotland, if royalty didn't sign up to the Kirk, it was the royalty who got the exit (sometimes later than one would have liked).
As for land and endowments, that's for an entire nation. And includes the churches themselves. Not a small Oxbridge college or publkic school, many of which were later foundations. The numbers employed will be quite different.
Besides, doesn't that wreck your Welsh argument, if you are implying that the C of S is doing nicely (whether it is or not, I don't know)?
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
Secondary moderns call themselves comprehensives these days. They often offer "grammar streams" too. It's all branding.
If operating where there are grammar schools, they are Secondary Moderns whatever they call themselves.
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
He's a genius
See above re. Alien (and T&L). I have a massive blind spot for Blade Runner, which has all the ingredients of a film I ought to love but find boring as hell. Gladiator is decent blockbuster schlock. He's a pretty good director with an eye for great material and good casting, but hardly a genius.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
Nobody in my immediate, or extended, family was privately educated - not now, nor in the past. We have all been pretty successful in life, in a variety of different ways. We were all comprehensively educated, apart from handful of oldies who started out in grammar schools. The state schools that my kids, and all my relatives, attended have been great.
Conclusion: I get pretty pissed off with the view held by so many on here that state comprehensive schools aren't good enough for their precious kids. Most state schools do a fabulous job. A minority aren't good enough, and that needs fixing. But a minority of private schools are also pretty poor.
Me too. I am one of three sibs all completely State educated and all with top flight careers.
I reckon that I benefitted tremendously from the wide variety of backgrounds of my school friends and classmates.
On this subject of charitable status PB BTL is a mile away from public opinion. Its a bit like hearing some Rupert complain of the cost of keeping a nanny or their holiday cottage.
My complaint about this policy is not so much that it will make private education more expensive, but that it will bring no benefits from doing so. Selfishly, it will be harder for my third child to get into one of the good state schools because places there will be taken up by kids who would otherwise have gone private. The costs of forcing parents out of the private sector and into the state sector will be far greater than the funds thereby raised.
I posted this yesterday, but although it got some pushback I didn't really see any compelling argument against it.
It is supported by various precedents, notably the disendowment of the Church of Ireland (1869) and the Church in Wales (1920) when it was held the money they had raised should go to the nation rather than a private organisation. And it is worth remembering at this point that 'public' schools were so called because they were meant to be open to the public.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
And look at the damage that did to those churches. The Church in Wales just a shadow of its former self for example. Indeed more Welsh are Roman Catholic or Methodist now than Anglican and in Ireland more Catholic or Presbyterian than Anglican too
That's a joke, right?
He made the same joke about Scotland in an argument with me a year or two back - don't know if you saw it. Apparently the disestablishment of the C of S means that Scotland is at rist of being excessively influenced by the RC Church, but England is protected from such a fate by the Establishment of the C of E.
Not sure where the punchline comes, mind.
There has never really been an established church in Scotland but the Church of Scotland is effectively the Scottish established church, attended by the monarch.
The Church of Scotland has a £515.8m portfolio of land and endowments too, ie more than most Oxbridge colleges and public schools
I think you have this king business the wrong way round. In Scotland, if royalty didn't sign up to the Kirk, it was the royalty who got the exit (sometimes later than one would have liked).
As for land and endowments, that's for an entire nation. And includes the churches themselves. Not a small Oxbridge college or publkic school, many of which were later foundations. The numbers employed will be quite different.
Besides, doesn't that wreck your Welsh argument, if you are implying that the C of S is doing nicely (whether it is or not, I don't know)?
The Church of Scotland kept its endowments, the Church in Wales didn't.
Far more are members of and attend Church of England or Church of Scotland services than are members of or attend Church in Wales services
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
He's a genius
See above re. Alien (and T&L). I have a massive blind spot for Blade Runner, which has all the ingredients of a film I ought to love but find boring as hell. Gladiator is decent blockbuster schlock. He's a pretty good director with an eye for great material and good casting, but hardly a genius.
Blade Runner ties with Casablanca for the greatest film ever made.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
My son went to slough grammar, if he hadn't got in I would have sent him private because there is no way I would have let him goto slough comprehensive....or as it was referred to locally the gang recruitment centre
Yes, quite. The inequalities in the state system are massive but no-one talks about that. State Good; Private bad is so simplistic. But that doesn't mean there is no case for withdrawing tax-exemption as a point of principle.
This is a bit of Labour populism isn't it?
I went to a state school where there were enough kids who didn't value education and made sure that those that did saw the error of their ways. No way would have put my son through that.
You have to remember though labour populism = good apparently according to many
State schools were pretty bad when I was a kid and I was sent to a private school (barring a short period). However, I understand from my peers that, at least in London, state schools these days are much better on average. I’m all for investing to deal with the small number of state schools which are poor.
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
He's a genius
See above re. Alien (and T&L). I have a massive blind spot for Blade Runner, which has all the ingredients of a film I ought to love but find boring as hell. Gladiator is decent blockbuster schlock. He's a pretty good director with an eye for great material and good casting, but hardly a genius.
Gladiator is pants. Are you not entertained? No, I am not.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
Any selective area has non selective schools. Doesn't make them comprehensives as such as the brightest pupils in the area regardless of family income tend to attend local grammars not the non selective schools rather than comprehensives which most would attend in non selective areas
I could easily have afforded to send both my kids to private school, but I thought Nah, fuck it, spend it on ME, and it's generally turned out fine, so there's a noble lesson there
Serious point here.
A lot of the commentary on terrible state schools is based on experiences from 20-30 years ago. There are lots of problems with the state system (and they will get worse unless someone pays teachers enough to get them to stay and spends enough stopping the buildings falling down) but the truly terrible schools, the ones overrun with gang warfare where nobody learns anything don't really exist in any numbers any more. They used to, but it's almost impossible for a school to get away with being that shoddy for long now. Ofsted and academisation have seen to that. Even in RI schools, the bread and butter teaching will be learn-from-able.
(Disclosure: I was briefly a governor at The Wost School In The County. I wouldn't have chosen it for my children, but we had moved to the area temporarily, and everywhere else was full. There was a lot wrong with it, but they haven't suffered as a result.)
There are exceptions, especially for children with special needs, where state provision collapses because demand is so much higher than supply. But most children will end up with the same grades wherever they go. (Don't believe me? Look at the Progress 8 scores- not many schools add more than half a grade per subject at GCSE, not many subtract more than half a grade.)
So if you have money, spend it on enrichment and networking. Take them to museums and lectures. Send them to summer schools. That's the stuff that state teachers can't do, because they don't have the spare time, because they're delivering an OK education on about half the budget of private schools.
And if you have the ability to go into a local school and do a workshop on public speaking, or engineering, or journalism or whatever, most schools would be incredibly grateful. Not all, but most. Whatever else you think of Peston, he had the right idea with https://www.speakersforschools.org/
Oh, and well done to the staff at [REDACTED] who do a blooming good job under the circumstances at both the bread and butter and the enrichment. And it isn't a grammar school.
Well you say that but of the people my son went to primary with, him and one other got into slough grammar from his class, about 20% are in jail and about half have criminal records now (according to my son).
I suppose it compares well with my year from school where about 20% are dead now but most of those are due to fishing/farming accidents
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
I am trying to imagine a film about Napoleon where there's serious doubt whether a character is or is not Wellington. That lighting must be really dim.
I'm looking on an old laptop and my eyesight ain't great, so it may be a "me" problem. Here's the trailer, take a look for yourself: https://youtu.be/CBmWztLPp9c?t=100
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Much of Alien was Dan O'Bannon. Having previously written Dark Star (a brilliant film that sadly bombed) he decided that if he couldn't make a Sci FI film to make people laugh he would make one to scare the bejesus out of them. Hence Alien.
In fairness, film is an inherently collaborative medium and writers, actors, cinematographers, set designers, art directors, composers etc etc all play their part.
I guess when I'm thinking of 'the genius director' I'm thinking of those who push the medium forward through their vision for cinema: Hitchcock, Spielberg, Coppola, even Tarantino. I wouldn't put Ridley Scott in that category at all - whereas someone like Michael Mann or William Friedkin would be closer, even if they did some flawed stuff.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
I think the point here is that the schools you refer to can't be 'comprehensives' in the proper meaning of the word if they exclude the 26% that go to grammar school. I'm not hung up on what they're called, but they don't meet the original legal definition of a 'comprehensive' school.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
Any selective area has non selective schools. Doesn't make them comprehensives as such as the brightest pupils in the area regardless of family income tend to attend local grammars not the non selective schools rather than comprehensives which most would attend in non selective areas
Hahahaha. Changing your line as usual once you are challenged. The fact is three quarters of kids in Lincolnshire go to non selective schools. You stated that most kids in Lincolnshire go to Grammar schools and, as on almost every other subject you opine on, you were wrong.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
There you go again. All I said was you put words into people's mouths all the time. And you responded by doing just that. You really are thicker than clay porridge.
On the upside, here's some good news about the UK economy, at last. I know we all need a pep up in these dark times
The Knappers' Gazette have told me they're sending me to a brand new hotel in the Maldives to try "the best scuba diving in the world", in late September. Eight days all exes paid, 5 star and whatnot
So don't be down in the dumps, guys. Enough of the misery guts and Oh Woe. Things really ARE beginning to improve, if hotels and tour ops can afford to do the full on Free Luxury Travel once again. I sense we are turning the corner, there is a brightness to the east
And let's see some smiling faces, shall we, as we all share in this positive news
Er, it's the mention of the Maldives that plunges me into depression again. Bad enough with the insects. And now this ...
"With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world."
Interesting to see the views on here - and not all aligned with personal experience of schooling (e.g. TSE in the header).
For full disclosure: I was state educated. My close family includes teachers in both state and private schools. There is at least one private school reasonably local to me that I could probably afford to send our children to, while sacrificing of some things that we do (I happen to know the fees for that school; I do no know the fees of other local private schools). I have no interest in doing that, because I don't believe it would deliver, in the round, a better education and I do believe that I can use that money to support them in far better ways.
Such as hiring awesome history tutors at really quite reasonable rates?
Well, I was thinking of funding a gap year for each of them to post full time on PB* and therefore round off their education and debating skills (as well as learning how to never, ever, admit to being wrong) but I could be open to persuasion...
*to be known as the Bartholomew Roberts Scholarship
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
He's a genius
See above re. Alien (and T&L). I have a massive blind spot for Blade Runner, which has all the ingredients of a film I ought to love but find boring as hell. Gladiator is decent blockbuster schlock. He's a pretty good director with an eye for great material and good casting, but hardly a genius.
Blade Runner ties with Casablanca for the greatest film ever made.
Blimey. Two quite overrated, if culturally important, films.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
See above.
The bizarre anomaly is private schools get VAT breaks but sixth form colleges do not.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
He's a genius
See above re. Alien (and T&L). I have a massive blind spot for Blade Runner, which has all the ingredients of a film I ought to love but find boring as hell. Gladiator is decent blockbuster schlock. He's a pretty good director with an eye for great material and good casting, but hardly a genius.
Gladiator is pants. Are you not entertained? No, I am not.
Lol. I thought it was fine when I watched it at the pictures - I've only seen it maybe once all the way through since.
Stocky asked whether American charter schools are similar to British "academy". I suppose I may have heard the British term at some point, but that's about all, so I can't help you.
(One big thing to remember about American schools: They are far more decentralized than your schools, with most decisions made at the state and local levels. When George W. Bush proposed the "No Child Left Behind Act" I applauded the objective, but was skeptical about the federal government's ability to do very much in public education. I think on the whole, the program has been a success.)
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
There you go again. All I said was you put words into people's mouths all the time. And you responded by doing just that. You really are thicker than clay porridge.
Do fuck off it was you putting words in my mouth, I get you dont like me. Frankly its a matter of little concern to me. The only difference as far as I am concerned between you and plankton is you are probably taller. However in the interests of non intellectually challenged posters who will get bored with our spats I am just not going to read or respond to you from now on as its not worth my time or the sighs of those reading it. Have a good diamotaceous life sir goodbye.
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
I am trying to imagine a film about Napoleon where there's serious doubt whether a character is or is not Wellington. That lighting must be really dim.
I'm looking on an old laptop and my eyesight ain't great, so it may be a "me" problem. Here's the trailer, take a look for yourself: https://youtu.be/CBmWztLPp9c?t=100
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
But isn’t that the logic? If imposing VAT would cost the Treasury more, wouldn’t subsidising them save the Treasury money through the same mechanisms?
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
Any selective area has non selective schools. Doesn't make them comprehensives as such as the brightest pupils in the area regardless of family income tend to attend local grammars not the non selective schools rather than comprehensives which most would attend in non selective areas
Can I step in here, because I nearly waded in earlier on this? I think this is simply a case of using different terms. HYUFD is not including in the definition of 'comprehensive' any school where a significant number of the most able to children who would otherwise have gone there go to grammars instead. So in Trafford, by his definition, there are no grammars. There are a few kids who would pass the eleven plus who choose not to take it - but they are practically negligible in numbers. It isn't the definition of 'comprehensive' I would have used, but in the way that HYUFD is using it he's entirely right.
Now Trafford is a small, urban authority, and there are few children for whom geography is going to be an issue - almost everyone has a grammar school in easy reach. If grammar schools work anywhere (and my own personal jury is still out), it is in authorities like Trafford. In a large, rural authority like Lincolnshire, where you may be 10 minutes from a non-selective school but over an hour from a selective one, things may be different.
Not relevant to this argument, but Wirral is fully selective, and Lancashire has grammar schools - though like in Lincolnshire, many will be dissuaded from grammar schools by geography rather than academic level.
Stocky asked whether American charter schools are similar to British "academy". I suppose I may have heard the British term at some point, but that's about all, so I can't help you.
(One big thing to remember about American schools: They are far more decentralized than your schools, with most decisions made at the state and local levels. When George W. Bush proposed the "No Child Left Behind Act" I applauded the objective, but was skeptical about the federal government's ability to do very much in public education. I think on the whole, the program has been a success.)
AIUI they are closer to Free Schools (which in fairness are a subspecies of academy).
Nobody in my immediate, or extended, family was privately educated - not now, nor in the past. We have all been pretty successful in life, in a variety of different ways. We were all comprehensively educated, apart from handful of oldies who started out in grammar schools. The state schools that my kids, and all my relatives, attended have been great.
Conclusion: I get pretty pissed off with the view held by so many on here that state comprehensive schools aren't good enough for their precious kids. Most state schools do a fabulous job. A minority aren't good enough, and that needs fixing. But a minority of private schools are also pretty poor.
Me too. I am one of three sibs all completely State educated and all with top flight careers.
I reckon that I benefitted tremendously from the wide variety of backgrounds of my school friends and classmates.
On this subject of charitable status PB BTL is a mile away from public opinion. Its a bit like hearing some Rupert complain of the cost of keeping a nanny or their holiday cottage.
My complaint about this policy is not so much that it will make private education more expensive, but that it will bring no benefits from doing so. Selfishly, it will be harder for my third child to get into one of the good state schools because places there will be taken up by kids who would otherwise have gone private. The costs of forcing parents out of the private sector and into the state sector will be far greater than the funds thereby raised.
So, should we use government money to encourage more parents into the private sector?
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
Any selective area has non selective schools. Doesn't make them comprehensives as such as the brightest pupils in the area regardless of family income tend to attend local grammars not the non selective schools rather than comprehensives which most would attend in non selective areas
Hahahaha. Changing your line as usual once you are challenged. The fact is three quarters of kids in Lincolnshire go to non selective schools. You stated that most kids in Lincolnshire go to Grammar schools and, as on almost every other subject you opine on, you were wrong.
Fine future as a Conservative politician, I'd say
ETA: Well, any party politician, but I think HYUFD only swings one way.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
I think the point here is that the schools you refer to can't be 'comprehensives' in the proper meaning of the word if they exclude the 26% that go to grammar school. I'm not hung up on what they're called, but they don't meet the original legal definition of a 'comprehensive' school.
And beyond a certain point, if you top-slice the ability range, you end up with a school which is incredibly difficult to run effectively. I don't know the details for Linconshire, but Kent (which also has a system with lots of grammar schools) has a real problem that children from deprived backgrounds (who tend to end up in the Not Grammar Schools, whatever you call them) do worse than expected;
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
I don't know how true it is but you certainly hear stories of parents renting a house to get into the catchment area for good schools. Until more state schools are good enough there is always going to be an opportunity and incentive for the wealthy to game the system.
Nobody in my immediate, or extended, family was privately educated - not now, nor in the past. We have all been pretty successful in life, in a variety of different ways. We were all comprehensively educated, apart from handful of oldies who started out in grammar schools. The state schools that my kids, and all my relatives, attended have been great.
Conclusion: I get pretty pissed off with the view held by so many on here that state comprehensive schools aren't good enough for their precious kids. Most state schools do a fabulous job. A minority aren't good enough, and that needs fixing. But a minority of private schools are also pretty poor.
Me too. I am one of three sibs all completely State educated and all with top flight careers.
I reckon that I benefitted tremendously from the wide variety of backgrounds of my school friends and classmates.
On this subject of charitable status PB BTL is a mile away from public opinion. Its a bit like hearing some Rupert complain of the cost of keeping a nanny or their holiday cottage.
My complaint about this policy is not so much that it will make private education more expensive, but that it will bring no benefits from doing so. Selfishly, it will be harder for my third child to get into one of the good state schools because places there will be taken up by kids who would otherwise have gone private. The costs of forcing parents out of the private sector and into the state sector will be far greater than the funds thereby raised.
So, should we use government money to encourage more parents into the private sector?
I would certainly have no objection to that if it resulted in more places in the state sector more cheaply than funding them directly. Obviously there's a bit of calculus to work out what the sweet spot is.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
He said "VAT paid on tutoring"
Most errr.. forget about that. Oh and taxes, as well.
There will be no clampdown, since the majority are state school teachers earning money on the side.
I think it'll be a popular policy because the vast majority of the public don't send their kids to private schools and genuinely couldn't give a flying fuck about private schools. My Mrs was a TA at a private school before she gave it all up to concentrate on enjoying life, and her school was genuinely full of parents who used the school as baby sitters so they could go off earning millions. She was in Kindy and some of her kids were dropped off by mums wearing Louboutins and driving Maseratis at half 7 in the morning and picked up, usually late (but they'd rather pay the late pick up fine than miss whatever they were doing) at 7 at night. The same kids would be at holiday club in school during the holidays, apart from the month they spent in Dubai with the nanny. Sure, it might be a great education but those kids barely knew who their parents were. Tax 'em!
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
I don't know how true it is but you certainly hear stories of parents renting a house to get into the catchment area for good schools. Until more state schools are good enough there is always going to be an opportunity and incentive for the wealthy to game the system.
Across the road from the very good state Primary near me (people convicted of fraud trying to get in), they built (more squeezed in) a small bock of very tiny flats.
We all joked that each one bedroom flat would be the registered prime residence for a hedge fund owner and his 6 children.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Wait till they start going bust over their "investments" in student accommodation.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
"Spending more on X would mean spending less on Y" is the kind of thing only the truly heroically clueless would come out with. It doesn't work like that.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
If making private schools more expensive costs the country money because more kids enter the public sector, then it logically follows that making private schools cheaper should save the country money because fewer kids enter the public sector. The only question is where, as Cookie says, the sweet spot lies.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
But if you (say) subsidised private education to drop fees by 20%, would that not lead to an exodus of a fair number of state-educated children into the private system, thereby saving government money (20% of the average fee being less than the state school spend per person). If that doesn't hold, then why does raising fees by 20% cost the government money?
ETA: Obviously it's complicated and hard to answer, because it depends on what the actual fees would be and income curves etc, but - absent some very interesting curves - it seems on the face of it that the same should likely apply.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
Our best judgement is that it would be reasonable to assume that an effective VAT rate of 15% would lead to a 3–7% reduction in private school attendance. This would likely generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending per year in the medium to long run. Combining estimated tax revenues and extra public spending needs, our view is that it would be reasonable to assume a net gain to the public finances of £1.3–1.5 billion per year in the medium to long run as a result of removing tax exemptions from private schools. This would allow for about a 2% increase in state school spending in England, which Labour has proposed would be targeted at disadvantaged students.
(And that 7% would be pretty easily absorbed in the state sector, because pupil numbers are currently falling so there is beginning to be a surplus of places anyway.)
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
But he’s right. The discussion of the scope of government, still isn’t happening. A decade from now, it will be one of the key issues at the election.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Much of Alien was Dan O'Bannon. Having previously written Dark Star (a brilliant film that sadly bombed) he decided that if he couldn't make a Sci FI film to make people laugh he would make one to scare the bejesus out of them. Hence Alien.
The first script for Alien was set on board a WW2 US bomber returning from a night raid on Germany. Then Star Wars and Close Encounters happened... I heard this direct from Dan O'Bannon at a panel at the World Science Fiction Convention in 1979
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
In Banking and IT at that level, there's now a lot of work from home. Already quite a few people are WF.... their choice of country. One guy in my team spends a half his time in Germany, with his parents. They have a home working desk all setup for him. Doesn't even need to bring a computer.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
But if you (say) subsidised private education to drop fees by 20%, would that not lead to an exodus of a fair number of state-educated children into the private system, thereby saving government money (20% of the average fee being less than the state school spend per person). If that doesn't hold, then why does raising fees by 20% cost the government money?
ETA: Obviously it's complicated and hard to answer, because it depends on what the actual fees would be and income curves etc, but - absent some very interesting curves - it seems on the face of it that the same should likely apply.
I expect it would be revenue negative, yes more would enter I don't think enough would though to counter the subsidy
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Off topic: Dr. Leana Wen believes that AI needs regulation, but that one kind of AI is already a big success in medicine:
'[Mayo Clinic's John] Halamka distinguished between predictive and generative AI. The former involves mathematical models that use patterns from the past to predict the future; the latter uses text or images to generate a sort of human-like interaction.
It’s that first type that’s most valuable to medicine today. As Halamka described, predictive AI can look at the experiences of millions of patients and their illnesses to help answer a simple question: “What can we do to ensure that you have the best journey possible with the fewest potholes along the way?”'
Wen says that the first type is already providing better care in some areas. (It occurs to me that it may also reduce costs, in the long run.)
Now, off for a walk. (I was going south, but I see from the news that a bear was seen in a neighborhood where I would be walking. The neighborhood, "Bridle Trails", has domestic animals that may have attracted the bear.)
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
Go on, set out which wealth you tax, how often and at what rates.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
That is a possibility but I would point at the french who introduced a wealth tax and the result was?
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
"Spending more on X would mean spending less on Y" is the kind of thing only the truly heroically clueless would come out with. It doesn't work like that.
In aggregate it ultimately does mean that. If the government hired a million people to be teachers, that would reduce the capacity of the rest of the economy by a million people.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
To correct a misconception I think you have:
An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.
Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.
A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
I don't know how true it is but you certainly hear stories of parents renting a house to get into the catchment area for good schools. Until more state schools are good enough there is always going to be an opportunity and incentive for the wealthy to game the system.
Across the road from the very good state Primary near me (people convicted of fraud trying to get in), they built (more squeezed in) a small bock of very tiny flats.
We all joked that each one bedroom flat would be the registered prime residence for a hedge fund owner and his 6 children.
Even if it's all above board the presence of a good school makes an area more attactive to live in, and house prices and rents go up. If you have lots of good schools, particularly with academies, grammars, C of E schools and the like then the housing cost difference is probably on a par with paying school fees and living in a less nice area.
I suspect that even if public schools were abolished the wealthy would effectively skew the state system so that there were good areas and bad areas for education.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
On the latter point, before anyone steps in, I'd add that we have yet to see the full consequences of the new open access systems where whole swathes of publishers' ranges are made open access by lump sum payments from the universities. That had a huge effect on the public impact of a paper I published with a colleague in one such university/journal combination, and which was of real interest to many. That's a real contribution, as you say.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
"Spending more on X would mean spending less on Y" is the kind of thing only the truly heroically clueless would come out with. It doesn't work like that.
In aggregate it ultimately does mean that. If the government hired a million people to be teachers, that would reduce the capacity of the rest of the economy by a million people.
Not really, since the working population also isn't a static quantity. People come in and out of work and in and out of the country. Economies are complex, and any view that relies on the implicit notion of dividing up a fixed-size pie is likely to be wrong. Perhaps in some very specific cases like the amount of land available it's more or less fixed, but government budgets and working populations have a certain amount of elasticity.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
Changing very significantly, albeit at the cost of the uni. See my post just before yours.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
I went to a sink comp, my wife went to a high-achieving private school. We've ended up in roughly the same place.
I'm not sure what that says or what you can extrapolate from it. But it doesn't sell private education to me, even if we could afford it.
There are studies showing that if you adjust for the relatively advantaged intake the independent sector achieves similar results to the state sector. If true this would mean private schools underperform on a vfm basis since their per pupil spend is higher.
No doubt the vfm in state schools is better if you measure purely by results, but that's because a lot of what you pay for at private schools goes on non-academic things it's difficult to quantify - out of school opportunities, pleasant surroundings, pastoral care, not getting stabbed, etc.
We're in the lucky position that our oldest two have got into relatively good secondary schools. But there's no doubt that there are lots of bad state schools which I would happily put off retirement for seven years in order to go private to avoid. I want my kids to do more than get good grades: I want them to enjoy their school years. Or at least not hate them.
Joking aside, I agree. I got lucky with both girls being in good catchment areas. Literally lucky in one case: at the last moment one excellent school changed its catchment area and the eldest snuck in. She is now at a brilliant state VI Form
Some of the schools we saw, when choosing, were violent zoos. I'd have eagerly forked out for private education if that was the only alternative
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
If making private schools more expensive costs the country money because more kids enter the public sector, then it logically follows that making private schools cheaper should save the country money because fewer kids enter the public sector. The only question is where, as Cookie says, the sweet spot lies.
Well not necessarily, because where the sweet spot is will depend on several factors, some of which will be straight lines and some curved. My suspicion is indeed that the sweet spot is some way to the right of here - that there is the capacity to improve the lot of state schools by moving kids to the private sector. Indeed, we used to do this - the brightest state school children would be given scholarships to private schools paid for by the state. Though arguably they aren't the ones we should be getting out of mainstream education!
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
"Spending more on X would mean spending less on Y" is the kind of thing only the truly heroically clueless would come out with. It doesn't work like that.
In aggregate it ultimately does mean that. If the government hired a million people to be teachers, that would reduce the capacity of the rest of the economy by a million people.
Not really, since the working population also isn't a static quantity. People come in and out of work and in and out of the country. Economies are complex, and any view that relies on the implicit notion of dividing up a fixed-size pie is likely to be wrong. Perhaps in some very specific cases like the amount of land available it's more or less fixed, but government budgets and working populations have a certain amount of elasticity.
A certain amount, but not an infinite amount, and if any economic actor can't afford to ignore trade-offs at the macro level, it's the state.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
Changing very significantly, albeit at the cost of the uni. See my post just before yours.
Yebbut because I am no longer a "senior academic" I cannot access even my own publications without paying through the nose to the likes of Elsevier
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
Go on, set out which wealth you tax, how often and at what rates.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Comments
"With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/preparing-for-rising-seas-in-the-maldives
He's a genius
The Church of Scotland has a £515.8m portfolio of land and endowments too, ie more than most Oxbridge colleges and public schools
https://www.scotsman.com/news/how-much-land-and-property-does-the-church-of-scotland-own-1479442
I reckon that I benefitted tremendously from the wide variety of backgrounds of my school friends and classmates.
On this subject of charitable status PB BTL is a mile away from public opinion. Its a bit like hearing some Rupert complain of the cost of keeping a nanny or their holiday cottage.
We're in the lucky position that our oldest two have got into relatively good secondary schools. But there's no doubt that there are lots of bad state schools which I would happily put off retirement for seven years in order to go private to avoid. I want my kids to do more than get good grades: I want them to enjoy their school years. Or at least not hate them.
A lot of the commentary on terrible state schools is based on experiences from 20-30 years ago. There are lots of problems with the state system (and they will get worse unless someone pays teachers enough to get them to stay and spends enough stopping the buildings falling down) but the truly terrible schools, the ones overrun with gang warfare where nobody learns anything don't really exist in any numbers any more. They used to, but it's almost impossible for a school to get away with being that shoddy for long now. Ofsted and academisation have seen to that. Even in RI schools, the bread and butter teaching will be learn-from-able.
(Disclosure: I was briefly a governor at The Wost School In The County. I wouldn't have chosen it for my children, but we had moved to the area temporarily, and everywhere else was full. There was a lot wrong with it, but they haven't suffered as a result.)
There are exceptions, especially for children with special needs, where state provision collapses because demand is so much higher than supply. But most children will end up with the same grades wherever they go. (Don't believe me? Look at the Progress 8 scores- not many schools add more than half a grade per subject at GCSE, not many subtract more than half a grade.)
So if you have money, spend it on enrichment and networking. Take them to museums and lectures. Send them to summer schools. That's the stuff that state teachers can't do, because they don't have the spare time, because they're delivering an OK education on about half the budget of private schools.
And if you have the ability to go into a local school and do a workshop on public speaking, or engineering, or journalism or whatever, most schools would be incredibly grateful. Not all, but most. Whatever else you think of Peston, he had the right idea with https://www.speakersforschools.org/
Oh, and well done to the staff at [REDACTED] who do a blooming good job under the circumstances at both the bread and butter and the enrichment. And it isn't a grammar school.
As for land and endowments, that's for an entire nation. And includes the churches themselves. Not a small Oxbridge college or publkic school, many of which were later foundations. The numbers employed will be quite different.
Besides, doesn't that wreck your Welsh argument, if you are implying that the C of S is doing nicely (whether it is or not, I don't know)?
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
Far more are members of and attend Church of England or Church of Scotland services than are members of or attend Church in Wales services
I suppose it compares well with my year from school where about 20% are dead now but most of those are due to fishing/farming accidents
I guess when I'm thinking of 'the genius director' I'm thinking of those who push the medium forward through their vision for cinema: Hitchcock, Spielberg, Coppola, even Tarantino. I wouldn't put Ridley Scott in that category at all - whereas someone like Michael Mann or William Friedkin would be closer, even if they did some flawed stuff.
These are the last years for many destinations that we are destroying through climate change.
It would be refreshing to see that written rather than a puff piece paid for by the travel industry masquerading advertising as journalism.
*to be known as the Bartholomew Roberts Scholarship
The bizarre anomaly is private schools get VAT breaks but sixth form colleges do not.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
(One big thing to remember about American schools: They are far more decentralized than your schools, with most decisions made at the state and local levels. When George W. Bush proposed the "No Child Left Behind Act" I applauded the objective, but was skeptical about the federal government's ability to do very much in public education. I think on the whole, the program has been a success.)
Compare this https://youtu.be/CBmWztLPp9c?t=100 to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phillips-Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg
It isn't the definition of 'comprehensive' I would have used, but in the way that HYUFD is using it he's entirely right.
Now Trafford is a small, urban authority, and there are few children for whom geography is going to be an issue - almost everyone has a grammar school in easy reach. If grammar schools work anywhere (and my own personal jury is still out), it is in authorities like Trafford. In a large, rural authority like Lincolnshire, where you may be 10 minutes from a non-selective school but over an hour from a selective one, things may be different.
Not relevant to this argument, but Wirral is fully selective, and Lancashire has grammar schools - though like in Lincolnshire, many will be dissuaded from grammar schools by geography rather than academic level.
ETA: Well, any party politician, but I think HYUFD only swings one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965
How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
He said "VAT paid on tutoring"
Most errr.. forget about that. Oh and taxes, as well.
There will be no clampdown, since the majority are state school teachers earning money on the side.
Bit like Fox hunting vs Fishing.
My Mrs was a TA at a private school before she gave it all up to concentrate on enjoying life, and her school was genuinely full of parents who used the school as baby sitters so they could go off earning millions. She was in Kindy and some of her kids were dropped off by mums wearing Louboutins and driving Maseratis at half 7 in the morning and picked up, usually late (but they'd rather pay the late pick up fine than miss whatever they were doing) at 7 at night. The same kids would be at holiday club in school during the holidays, apart from the month they spent in Dubai with the nanny. Sure, it might be a great education but those kids barely knew who their parents were.
Tax 'em!
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
We all joked that each one bedroom flat would be the registered prime residence for a hedge fund owner and his 6 children.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
ETA: Obviously it's complicated and hard to answer, because it depends on what the actual fees would be and income curves etc, but - absent some very interesting curves - it seems on the face of it that the same should likely apply.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
Our best judgement is that it would be reasonable to assume that an effective VAT rate of 15% would lead to a 3–7% reduction in private school attendance. This would likely generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending per year in the medium to long run.
Combining estimated tax revenues and extra public spending needs, our view is that it would be reasonable to assume a net gain to the public finances of £1.3–1.5 billion per year in the medium to long run as a result of removing tax exemptions from private schools. This would allow for about a 2% increase in state school spending in England, which Labour has proposed would be targeted at disadvantaged students.
(And that 7% would be pretty easily absorbed in the state sector, because pupil numbers are currently falling so there is beginning to be a surplus of places anyway.)
People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
I heard this direct from Dan O'Bannon at a panel at the World Science Fiction Convention in 1979
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
'[Mayo Clinic's John] Halamka distinguished between predictive and generative AI. The former involves mathematical models that use patterns from the past to predict the future; the latter uses text or images to generate a sort of human-like interaction.
It’s that first type that’s most valuable to medicine today. As Halamka described, predictive AI can look at the experiences of millions of patients and their illnesses to help answer a simple question: “What can we do to ensure that you have the best journey possible with the fewest potholes along the way?”'
source$:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/11/ai-health-care-revolution/
Wen says that the first type is already providing better care in some areas. (It occurs to me that it may also reduce costs, in the long run.)
Now, off for a walk. (I was going south, but I see from the news that a bear was seen in a neighborhood where I would be walking. The neighborhood, "Bridle Trails", has domestic animals that may have attracted the bear.)
An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.
Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.
A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
I suspect that even if public schools were abolished the wealthy would effectively skew the state system so that there were good areas and bad areas for education.
First Methlox rocket to orbit
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1678941562590429185?s=46&t=BXfRXqZ4RcCOdvlSgUjZSg
Blue Origin loses an engine during final testing
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1678844068703477762?s=46&t=BXfRXqZ4RcCOdvlSgUjZSg
OK, it has its weaknesses, but it also has *that* final shot.
Some of the schools we saw, when choosing, were violent zoos. I'd have eagerly forked out for private education if that was the only alternative
My suspicion is indeed that the sweet spot is some way to the right of here - that there is the capacity to improve the lot of state schools by moving kids to the private sector. Indeed, we used to do this - the brightest state school children would be given scholarships to private schools paid for by the state. Though arguably they aren't the ones we should be getting out of mainstream education!
Maybe that's a sign that everybody has a decided opinion on it?
Now, cricket ...
Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.