Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
Yes that’s roughly what we pay, for one child at a bog standard day school in SE London (with illustrious alumni including James Cleverly).
That’s some holiday. Now imagine if you had 2 children of secondary school age.
But again, the Tory campaign against this isn’t aimed at parents of schoolchildren, who already know this. It’s aimed at pensioners who remember private school being something hard working middle class families could afford by foregoing a foreign holiday, back in the 70s or 80s.
The proportion of children in private schools in the 70s and 80s was roughly the same as today (perhaps a bit lower). Since then, the UK has become even more unequal, particularly with the top income decile's income growing far faster than the rest of the populations.
Since 2010, spending per per pupil in private schools has grown from 50% higher than state schools to 100% higher.
I don't want to be personally rude but PB's demographics really start to show on topics like this.
I think about 20% of the adult population have experienced private education at one time or another.
Since this broadly represents the % of jobs in the professional and managerial classes, including journalism, media, 3rd sector, and lead public sector roles equivalent to the same, we shouldn't be surprised it's a subject of interest on here given it's broadly where most pb regulars are at.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
Yes that’s roughly what we pay, for one child at a bog standard day school in SE London (with illustrious alumni including James Cleverly).
That’s some holiday. Now imagine if you had 2 children of secondary school age.
But again, the Tory campaign against this isn’t aimed at parents of schoolchildren, who already know this. It’s aimed at pensioners who remember private school being something hard working middle class families could afford by foregoing a foreign holiday, back in the 70s or 80s.
The proportion of children in private schools in the 70s and 80s was roughly the same as today (perhaps a bit lower). Since then, the UK has become more unequal, particularly with the top income decile's income growing far faster than the rest of the populations.
Since 2010, spending per per pupil in private schools has grown from 50% higher than state schools to 100% higher.
I don't want to be personally rude but PB's demographics really start to show on topics like this.
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
They could offer assisted places to poorer families. Or they could if Tony hadnt nixed it.
Described by a private school head as dealing with the problem of 100 starving children by taking one to the Ritz.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
That average is skewed because it includes the 'hugely expensive private schools' Mr Dancer referenced.
Here's a local example. Just over £9,000 a year for the top end.
I can imagine that somebody might spend £6000 on a foreign holiday. Or on leasing a new car. Cut those out by staying in Cornwall or buying a second hand vehicle and the maths isn't far out.
With one child perhaps. Two at the same time and it's unambiguously far out.
Which returns is to the observation that private schools are no longer a thing the middle class can do by scrimping and saving. They used to be, but they aren't now.
Could they ever? I can find a maximum proportion of about 8% in the early 60s, since then oscillating between 5 and 7%.
If this is an attempt to target Reform voters, it's doomed to fail. They are less likely to have a university education than the rest of population, and I'd guess a private education too. And less likely to have school age children.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Maybe headline fees but even the cheaper ones would also include loads of extra costs such as uniform, food, extra activities etc. Plus unless you only have one child you’re also essentially committing to sending all of them to a public school.
In any case my point really was that for the vast majority of the population who presumably find it too expensive to contemplate or have moral objections then it won’t matter if fees are suddenly 20% more.
State schools also charge for uniforms, food and extra activities. In fact, most private schools of my acquaintance have already rolled food costs into the headline figure so arguably that's more honest.
You can get Free School Meals on some state school funding pathways. But it isn't straightforward and the food is often rubbish anyway.
True but the education bit is free. I’m not trying to argue that public schools are bad value or anything. I’m just questioning what relevance a hike in school fees would be to the 99.4% of families who don’t send their children to public schools. Moonrabbit seems to think that a huge number of these families are desperate to send their children to a public school and would be on the verge of doing so were it not for the VAT policy.
But it's not 99.4% (unless you mean 'public schools' rather than 'private schools')
Only around 7% of children are in private education at any time. But around 20% will have attended a private school at some point in their school career. That's also skewed by area, of course. I think there's only three private schools in the whole of Northumberland, but a third of children in London will have been privately educated at one time or another. Corbyn himself, for example, was privately educated until the age of 11 and then he went to a school that was de facto a private school even though the tuition fees were paid by the state.
I'm not convinced this policy will have as big an impact as Moonrabbit thinks, but I do think it's likely to have a wider and more damaging impact than Labour realises.
Its a bit like the hints at renewed assaults on hunting and shooting. It pisses off a lot of people in rural seats where they had been making good progress. A thousand or so per rural constituency might make the difference
It keeps Angela Rayner and that wing of the party on board.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
Yes that’s roughly what we pay, for one child at a bog standard day school in SE London (with illustrious alumni including James Cleverly).
That’s some holiday. Now imagine if you had 2 children of secondary school age.
But again, the Tory campaign against this isn’t aimed at parents of schoolchildren, who already know this. It’s aimed at pensioners who remember private school being something hard working middle class families could afford by foregoing a foreign holiday, back in the 70s or 80s.
The proportion of children in private schools in the 70s and 80s was roughly the same as today (perhaps a bit lower). Since then, the UK has become even more unequal, particularly with the top income decile's income growing far faster than the rest of the populations.
Since 2010, spending per per pupil in private schools has grown from 50% higher than state schools to 100% higher.
I don't want to be personally rude but PB's demographics really start to show on topics like this.
It's very rude of me as a person without children but with 20 years' experience of education in universities, grammar schools, inner city comps, private schools and running an international tutoring company to keep providing evidence that perceived wisdom on this point is wrong.
Truthfully though what bothers me more about this is not so much Labour's ineptitude as that it seems to be about the only education policy they have. They seem utterly oblivious to the enormous crisis currently engulfing the state sector.
Between academy chains that suck out resources and damage school performance through inept micro-managing, falsified OFSTED reports, an inspection framework that even when not falsified is highly damaging to children's education particularly by making it harder for them to learn to read, an ageing stock of buildings some of which are literally falling down, teacher recruitment and retention at record lows and falling, an exam system designed by people who appear to have the intellect of stuffed cabbages, which is about to move online in an uncontrolled and unfunded way, and collapsing pupil numbers, and an administrative system that is generally seen as staffed exclusively by lying drunks the sector really is facing a series of existential threats.
And their solution? VAT on private school fees!
Which will make precisely fuck all difference to any of it.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
That average is skewed because it includes the 'hugely expensive private schools' Mr Dancer referenced.
Here's a local example. Just over £9,000 a year for the top end.
I can imagine that somebody might spend £6000 on a foreign holiday. Or on leasing a new car. Cut those out by staying in Cornwall or buying a second hand vehicle and the maths isn't far out.
With one child perhaps. Two at the same time and it's unambiguously far out.
Which returns is to the observation that private schools are no longer a thing the middle class can do by scrimping and saving. They used to be, but they aren't now.
Two children at either of those schools and you get a big reduction. I think Brewood it's 50% off for the second one.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Maybe headline fees but even the cheaper ones would also include loads of extra costs such as uniform, food, extra activities etc. Plus unless you only have one child you’re also essentially committing to sending all of them to a public school.
In any case my point really was that for the vast majority of the population who presumably find it too expensive to contemplate or have moral objections then it won’t matter if fees are suddenly 20% more.
State schools also charge for uniforms, food and extra activities. In fact, most private schools of my acquaintance have already rolled food costs into the headline figure so arguably that's more honest.
You can get Free School Meals on some state school funding pathways. But it isn't straightforward and the food is often rubbish anyway.
True but the education bit is free. I’m not trying to argue that public schools are bad value or anything. I’m just questioning what relevance a hike in school fees would be to the 99.4% of families who don’t send their children to public schools. Moonrabbit seems to think that a huge number of these families are desperate to send their children to a public school and would be on the verge of doing so were it not for the VAT policy.
But it's not 99.4% (unless you mean 'public schools' rather than 'private schools')
Only around 7% of children are in private education at any time. But around 20% will have attended a private school at some point in their school career. That's also skewed by area, of course. I think there's only three private schools in the whole of Northumberland, but a third of children in London will have been privately educated at one time or another. Corbyn himself, for example, was privately educated until the age of 11 and then he went to a school that was de facto a private school even though the tuition fees were paid by the state.
I'm not convinced this policy will have as big an impact as Moonrabbit thinks, but I do think it's likely to have a wider and more damaging impact than Labour realises.
Its a bit like the hints at renewed assaults on hunting and shooting. It pisses off a lot of people in rural seats where they had been making good progress. A thousand or so per rural constituency might make the difference
It keeps Angela Rayner and that wing of the party on board.
That's what it's about.
It kept that wing of the party on board - I don’t however regarding Angela Rayner as particularly left wing
Tomorrow my daughter's school has an inset day. There are 5 of these in the year: FIVE. That is a whole work week in the year that is not a bank holiday and there is no other child care provisioning on offer. We have no family near by to help. It drives me insane. Think what this means in terms of national productivity. This is the difference between recession or not. The lack of resources and coordination with the labour market is a massive problem for my family on a regular basis. I think it is a metaphor for the inefficiency of the whole british system.
One of the primary schools in my village puts all the inset days into one week - which happens to be next week - so that parents can get a week's holiday during what is technically 'term-time'.
My son's school doesn't, and we also have an inset day tomorrow. I think many schools are, as Legoland's entry prices are higher than on the Sunday - £49 for tomorrow, compared to £44 today and £37 on Tuesday. Next Monday is £34. Unless some schools are having half term this week?
(What is the point of 'inset days'?)
Inset days were originally called Baker days, as they were introduced by Conservative Education secretary Kenneth Baker in the late 80s.
Their purpose is to provide some time for professional development and training of teachers.
Oh, I really should check the whole thread before replying.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
Apparently VAT on private schools is going to “dramatically shift the polls”
Hopium at its finest.
Why should it shift the polls, as it's already known to be Labour policy, and has already been a focus of attention in the campaign?
Unless the Conservatives make it their primary campaign issue over the next 4 weeks, talk about it in the debates, FB ads and so on.
It wouldn't even be the craziest thing they've done so far.
It may fit in with the strategy of trying to get a few percent of votes back from Reform, but given the small percentage of privately educated children and their demographics, I can't see it doing much to a Labour lead of 20% or so.
Even with a question framed in a negative way about private schools being forced to close there is quite a division of opinion. 14% of Tory voters think it a good thing if they do.
That's not a 'negative' wat of framing it. It's a truthful way of framing it.
I'm not convinced that 'not charging VAT' is the same as a 'tax break.'
I mean, is it a 'tax break' to not pay income tax below £12570? Or to pay standard rate on up to £50k?
A tax being charged and then specifically remitted would be different.
It's officially an exemption. Is there a semantic difference between a tax exemption and a tax break?
I’m not sure why people are doubting Labour’s policy on private school fees. There’s an obvious example from the recent past where a party leader promised a policy pre-election purely to keep the headbangers in his own party happy. That one worked out really well with very little kerfuffle and in fact everyone has pretty much forgotten it happened, apart from maybe the 7% of people who traded with Europe.
Apparently VAT on private schools is going to “dramatically shift the polls”
Hopium at its finest.
Why should it shift the polls, as it's already known to be Labour policy, and has already been a focus of attention in the campaign?
Unless the Conservatives make it their primary campaign issue over the next 4 weeks, talk about it in the debates, FB ads and so on.
It wouldn't even be the craziest thing they've done so far.
It may fit in with the strategy of trying to get a few percent of votes back from Reform, but given the small percentage of privately educated children and their demographics, I can't see it doing much to a Labour lead of 20% or so.
Even with a question framed in a negative way about private schools being forced to close there is quite a division of opinion. 14% of Tory voters think it a good thing if they do.
That's not a 'negative' wat of framing it. It's a truthful way of framing it.
I'm not convinced that 'not charging VAT' is the same as a 'tax break.'
I mean, is it a 'tax break' to not pay income tax below £12570? Or to pay standard rate on up to £50k?
A tax being charged and then specifically remitted would be different.
Always happy to answer rhetorical questions:
I mean, is it a 'tax break' to not pay income tax below £12570? Yes
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
Answers a niche issue and should allow all the private special needs schools to continue as before.
The Tories are going to hate it as the risk to specialist special needs schools was about the only part of the consequences that got any traction and yet within a few days of the issue being mentioned the issue has been fixed and the problem closed off
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
If you own a house with a mortgage and you have enough income to send your children to private school, you are rolling in it.
It's nearly offensive that you don't realise that. 100,000 kids in state care. A 28% increase in the number of households renting. A crashing fertility rate because people my age cannot afford to have kids in the first place, let alone send them to private school!
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
I hadn't seen that part. Do you have more information? For example, will it only apply to those pupils who have an EHCP but not to any others? Or to schools with a particular ratio of children with SEND? Or just to schools that take such pupils? (If the latter it won't raise much money as a policy because so many private schools do, but it would be a better policy.)
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
I hadn't seen that part. Do you have more information? For example, will it only apply to those pupils who have an EHCP but not to any others? Or to schools with a particular ratio of children with SEND? Or just to schools that take such pupils? (If the latter it won't raise much money as a policy because so many private schools do, but it would be a better policy.)
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
They could offer assisted places to poorer families. Or they could if Tony hadnt nixed it.
Forget assisted places, that was a fig leaf for the few, marketing spend.
Instead differentiate and support the institutions with a genuine charitable mission. Say if they offer 50% free unselected places local catchment or a mission to help kids falling through the system , I might buy more into the idea that they are a charity.
Good morning from Moldova. These lovely ladies are making sour cherry pie called placinta. An unfortunate name for a delicious pie. Ideal for breakfast
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
The increase in mortgages and a forthcoming reduction in primary aged children is already causing some of the latter type of schools to close.
Although they all seem to be blaming Kabours policy because - well you would blame anything that can’t be pinned back in you
I don't see why they'd be blamed for rising mortgages or falling birth rates either?
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?"
The entire world is in the control of a bunch of mates from the Eton. So the private schools are to blame for interest rates and birth rates.
They are under your bed.
The bit in italics just seems like a cut verse from the Stonecutters song from the Simpsons.
"Who controls the British Crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do!"
Apparently VAT on private schools is going to “dramatically shift the polls”
Hopium at its finest.
Why should it shift the polls, as it's already known to be Labour policy, and has already been a focus of attention in the campaign?
Unless the Conservatives make it their primary campaign issue over the next 4 weeks, talk about it in the debates, FB ads and so on.
It wouldn't even be the craziest thing they've done so far.
It may fit in with the strategy of trying to get a few percent of votes back from Reform, but given the small percentage of privately educated children and their demographics, I can't see it doing much to a Labour lead of 20% or so.
Even with a question framed in a negative way about private schools being forced to close there is quite a division of opinion. 14% of Tory voters think it a good thing if they do.
That's not a 'negative' wat of framing it. It's a truthful way of framing it.
I'm not convinced that 'not charging VAT' is the same as a 'tax break.'
I mean, is it a 'tax break' to not pay income tax below £12570? Or to pay standard rate on up to £50k?
A tax being charged and then specifically remitted would be different.
It's officially an exemption. Is there a semantic difference between a tax exemption and a tax break?
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
I hadn't seen that part. Do you have more information? For example, will it only apply to those pupils who have an EHCP but not to any others? Or to schools with a particular ratio of children with SEND? Or just to schools that take such pupils? (If the latter it won't raise much money as a policy because so many private schools do, but it would be a better policy.)
I’ve not seen such details explained anywhere.
So either they don't mean it, or they haven't thought it through.
Great.
But still, to be fair, something of an irrelevance to the real issues I've noted above.
At first glance it’s a total impoverished dump with nothing going for it. Investigate further and it’s truly charming. Also really good food and superb wine
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
They could offer assisted places to poorer families. Or they could if Tony hadnt nixed it.
Forget assisted places, that was a fig leaf for the few, marketing spend.
Instead differentiate and support the institutions with a genuine charitable mission. Say if they offer 50% free unselected places local catchment or a mission to help kids falling through the system , I might buy more into the idea that they are a charity.
I don't disagree. Reform the system and tie it in to a general improvement of the education sector.
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
I hadn't seen that part. Do you have more information? For example, will it only apply to those pupils who have an EHCP but not to any others? Or to schools with a particular ratio of children with SEND? Or just to schools that take such pupils? (If the latter it won't raise much money as a policy because so many private schools do, but it would be a better policy.)
I’ve not seen such details explained anywhere.
So either they don't mean it, or they haven't thought it through.
Great.
But still, to be fair, something of an irrelevance to the real issues I've noted above.
It’s truly a delight that the 5 remaining Tories think that arguing about how much they have to scrimp and scape to get by with private school fees will win them the election - or should even be discussed during this election.
I have no doubt that people have to carefully manage their budgets as CR describes. Very carefully. But what a blessed position to find yourself in where that is even an option.
Meanwhile, for the other 95% of people where that isn’t an option, the question is why I am worse off than last time, why I can’t see a doctor, why there are turds in the water, why the council can’t afford to pick litter or cut grass or repair potholes, why everything costs so much more than it did etc etc.
It is just gone 7.30am at The Priory primary school in Wednesbury, near Walsall, and already a dozen or so children – known as the “early birds” – have been dropped off so their parents can get to work. Some are jumping through hula hoops and others are just chatting at breakfast tables covered with smart red gingham cloths. The welcoming smell of toast fills the hall as more arrive.
This corner of the West Midlands is one of the most deprived parts of England, where poverty is rife. If teachers and staff here were not on hand to provide their charges with a good breakfast, they know many would arrive with empty stomachs, and then be unable to focus in class.
“It is so important,” says Elaine Dickenson, the school business manager who is overseeing the group. She sees the difference it makes to behaviour every day. “A full tummy means they can concentrate much better during lessons and for the rest of the day.” Dickenson is also able, from years of experience, to spot those in particular need. “You just know,” she says, “from the way they are dressed. You just have this sixth sense.”
There are kids that don't even get a good breakfast. They need help too.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
Yes that’s roughly what we pay, for one child at a bog standard day school in SE London (with illustrious alumni including James Cleverly).
That’s some holiday. Now imagine if you had 2 children of secondary school age.
But again, the Tory campaign against this isn’t aimed at parents of schoolchildren, who already know this. It’s aimed at pensioners who remember private school being something hard working middle class families could afford by foregoing a foreign holiday, back in the 70s or 80s.
The proportion of children in private schools in the 70s and 80s was roughly the same as today (perhaps a bit lower). Since then, the UK has become even more unequal, particularly with the top income decile's income growing far faster than the rest of the populations.
Since 2010, spending per per pupil in private schools has grown from 50% higher than state schools to 100% higher.
I don't want to be personally rude but PB's demographics really start to show on topics like this.
It's very rude of me as a person without children but with 20 years' experience of education in universities, grammar schools, inner city comps, private schools and running an international tutoring company to keep providing evidence that perceived wisdom on this point is wrong.
Truthfully though what bothers me more about this is not so much Labour's ineptitude as that it seems to be about the only education policy they have. They seem utterly oblivious to the enormous crisis currently engulfing the state sector.
Between academy chains that suck out resources and damage school performance through inept micro-managing, falsified OFSTED reports, an inspection framework that even when not falsified is highly damaging to children's education particularly by making it harder for them to learn to read, an ageing stock of buildings some of which are literally falling down, teacher recruitment and retention at record lows and falling, an exam system designed by people who appear to have the intellect of stuffed cabbages, which is about to move online in an uncontrolled and unfunded way, and collapsing pupil numbers, and an administrative system that is generally seen as staffed exclusively by lying drunks the sector really is facing a series of existential threats.
And their solution? VAT on private school fees!
Which will make precisely fuck all difference to any of it.
“an exam system designed by people who appear to have the intellect of stuffed cabbages”
Stuffed cabbages can be a noble dish. Please do not compare the people who err…. design?!!!???.. the exam system to them.
Good morning from Moldova. These lovely ladies are making sour cherry pie called placinta. An unfortunate name for a delicious pie. Ideal for breakfast
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
The median household income in the UK is £35,000. Probably a bit higher for families with dependent children? The richest quintiles average income is 14 times larger than the poorest.
(£38,000 after taxes and benefits, 6 time larger)
Part of the reason for this inequality is the regressive nature of... VAT
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
It could be correct, a policy that impacts a few people badly can be mentioned a lot on the doorstep when the vast majority of people that aren't affected have no reason to mention it but still approve of it. The unknown element is how big the penumbra of the policy is, people who don't have kids at private school but will one day want to, or did and want others to have the same opportunity as them, grandparents of children affected, etc.
I assume that Labour have focus grouped this to death as it's the only thing they have decided to keep from Keir's 2020 leadership pledges. If they thought the net effect was bad then Starmer would have dropped it a couple of years ago. It is perfectly possible that Moon is 100% correct but the policy still benefits the Labour campaign nationally. So the question is, has Labour made a mistake? We already know they aren't perfect but they have more data than Moon or Nick will have.
If Labour throughly war gamed it, they certainly arn’t telling canvassers how to respond, soon as it comes up their heads go into the ground like ostriches.
They have been caught by surprise on this one. This (what’s about to happen) is the sort of unforeseen shit storm that happens at elections.
Will it mean 20% leads end up in a hung Parliament like 2017? Maybe.
Good morning from Moldova. These lovely ladies are making sour cherry pie called placinta. An unfortunate name for a delicious pie. Ideal for breakfast
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
I hadn't seen that part. Do you have more information? For example, will it only apply to those pupils who have an EHCP but not to any others? Or to schools with a particular ratio of children with SEND? Or just to schools that take such pupils? (If the latter it won't raise much money as a policy because so many private schools do, but it would be a better policy.)
I’ve not seen such details explained anywhere.
It smells of the realisation that the private education sector isn’t just Eton and Winchester.
Good morning from Moldova. These lovely ladies are making sour cherry pie called placinta. An unfortunate name for a delicious pie. Ideal for breakfast
It is just gone 7.30am at The Priory primary school in Wednesbury, near Walsall, and already a dozen or so children – known as the “early birds” – have been dropped off so their parents can get to work. Some are jumping through hula hoops and others are just chatting at breakfast tables covered with smart red gingham cloths. The welcoming smell of toast fills the hall as more arrive.
This corner of the West Midlands is one of the most deprived parts of England, where poverty is rife. If teachers and staff here were not on hand to provide their charges with a good breakfast, they know many would arrive with empty stomachs, and then be unable to focus in class.
“It is so important,” says Elaine Dickenson, the school business manager who is overseeing the group. She sees the difference it makes to behaviour every day. “A full tummy means they can concentrate much better during lessons and for the rest of the day.” Dickenson is also able, from years of experience, to spot those in particular need. “You just know,” she says, “from the way they are dressed. You just have this sixth sense.”
There are kids that don't even get a good breakfast. They need help too.
Something Greggs, Kelloggs and multiple other companies having been helping out with for years.
The real issue is the middle ground of schools who don’t hit say 30% of free school meals so some how need to cover it from other budget issues. Weak around care in primary schools is an interesting area where I’m 100% sure things were easier to run before 2010 but I’m no where as close to the details as I was then
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
Yes that’s roughly what we pay, for one child at a bog standard day school in SE London (with illustrious alumni including James Cleverly).
That’s some holiday. Now imagine if you had 2 children of secondary school age.
But again, the Tory campaign against this isn’t aimed at parents of schoolchildren, who already know this. It’s aimed at pensioners who remember private school being something hard working middle class families could afford by foregoing a foreign holiday, back in the 70s or 80s.
The proportion of children in private schools in the 70s and 80s was roughly the same as today (perhaps a bit lower). Since then, the UK has become even more unequal, particularly with the top income decile's income growing far faster than the rest of the populations.
Since 2010, spending per per pupil in private schools has grown from 50% higher than state schools to 100% higher.
I don't want to be personally rude but PB's demographics really start to show on topics like this.
It's very rude of me as a person without children but with 20 years' experience of education in universities, grammar schools, inner city comps, private schools and running an international tutoring company to keep providing evidence that perceived wisdom on this point is wrong.
Truthfully though what bothers me more about this is not so much Labour's ineptitude as that it seems to be about the only education policy they have. They seem utterly oblivious to the enormous crisis currently engulfing the state sector.
Between academy chains that suck out resources and damage school performance through inept micro-managing, falsified OFSTED reports, an inspection framework that even when not falsified is highly damaging to children's education particularly by making it harder for them to learn to read, an ageing stock of buildings some of which are literally falling down, teacher recruitment and retention at record lows and falling, an exam system designed by people who appear to have the intellect of stuffed cabbages, which is about to move online in an uncontrolled and unfunded way, and collapsing pupil numbers, and an administrative system that is generally seen as staffed exclusively by lying drunks the sector really is facing a series of existential threats.
And their solution? VAT on private school fees!
Which will make precisely fuck all difference to any of it.
“an exam system designed by people who appear to have the intellect of stuffed cabbages”
Stuffed cabbages can be a noble dish. Please do not compare the people who err…. design?!!!???.. the exam system to them.
I learned how to make Moldovan stuffed cabbages three days ago. Emilia Hunganu taught me in her family dacha overlooking the Dniester. They are called sarmale and they can be very tasty. Don’t dismiss them so casually!
Here’s the Romanian version but the Moldovan versions are smaller and even nicer
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
I think I may have caused some confusion . Wes Streetings defence was private schools had been jacking up fees for years and implied they were using Labours plan to try and deflect . The rest is my view not his . And you’ll note I wasn’t aiming that at all parents .
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Closing down hundreds of Sure Start centres was far more anti-aspiration than asking private schools to find savings so that a small number of their clients can still afford to use them.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Providing a high-quality education to everyone in order to reduce intergenerational inequality, that you have so admirably overcome, is perhaps the most aspirational idea out there.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
It possibly has the bonus reward for Labour of damaging the Lib Dems in the blue wall.
Every true Labour activist knows who the real enemy is.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
You won't, though, because you are just about managing to scrimp and save, you say elsewhere. You'll end up paying for things that incur 20% VAT. At least that, I think, is the political economic logic.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
Note to Rishi - that line won't work in the debate.
The main downside for Labour in the private school VAT policy is that it sucks coverage away from other more important topics on which it should be getting air time.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
Would be interesting to see if this VAT reform unlocks greater change in private schools. For example, perhaps they need to split into commercial organisations aiming to give the rich a head start and genuinely charitable institutions providing an alternative free education, those primarily focused on the needs of local communities (say with over 50% free places) or those serving children with special needs.
Labour say VAT won’t apply to those serving children with special needs, so there will be some sort of categorisation.
Only statemented ones, so likely to put a spotlight on that protracted process.
Incidentally about 15% of our Med School applicants claim some sort of special need, mostly on some variation of neurodiversity. As we say in my trade "there's a lot of it about"
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
What might trouble you is how your situation highlights how pressure most people are these days. If the top end are under pressure, imagine how bad it is elsewhere. For example, at least you have a mortgage and can afford a house.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Closing down hundreds of Sure Start centres was far more anti-aspiration than asking private schools to find savings so that a small number of their clients can still afford to use them.
An, an eye for an eye.
Here's the problem: this policy won't raise a penny to help the problems of the state sector.
But it's interesting that you don't really care about that.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Providing a high-quality education to everyone in order to reduce intergenerational inequality, that you have so admirably overcome, is perhaps the most aspirational idea out there.
I await with interest Labour's groundbreaking plan for that.
Good morning from Moldova. These lovely ladies are making sour cherry pie called placinta. An unfortunate name for a delicious pie. Ideal for breakfast
Who eats pies for breakfast? Are you in Wigan?
Sweet fruit pastry is a great breakfast with coffee. And these are really excellent - they make them there and then, from the flaky pastry to the sour cherry filling, dusted with a hint of sugar. Eat them at a rustic table in the shade in the garden as the glorious sun slants down the ancient orheil valley, glittering on the golden domes of the ancient monastery of Trébenji and the fossil-rich limestones of the Tatar caravanserai
I genuinely thought Moldova was gonna be Meh. A tick in a box. Another country visited. A post communist toilet. How pleasant to be totally wrong
It’s not beautiful it’s not rich it’s not amazingly historic (tho it has some jewels). It has one fifteenth of one unesco site. It has no mountains no deserts no extraordinary landscapes
It is complete proof that a country really is its people. And Moldovans are great. Exceptionally friendly and hospitable and - because they get so few tourists - incredibly pleased to see you
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
You have the Tories to thank for that. As I said, the cost of VAT on school fees is a fraction of the cost of payroll tax rises over the last parliament.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
I think I may have caused some confusion . Wes Streetings defence was private schools had been jacking up fees for years and implied they were using Labours plan to try and deflect . The rest is my view not his . And you’ll note I wasn’t aiming that at all parents .
Fair enough, but whilst fees have increased (and some schools are definitely out of our reach already, and we could never afford boarding) that doesn't mean he should throw fuel on the fire or that his 20% price shock can be shrugged away or dismissed.
At first glance it’s a total impoverished dump with nothing going for it. Investigate further and it’s truly charming. Also really good food and superb wine
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
An income number is abstract. Percentiles put it in context. If someone earns 8000 Romanian leu per month, you would have no idea what that means. But if I tell you that’s the average Romanian salary, you immediately have a sense of what it means.
Your figures could include a junior doctor and a teacher. It would have to be someone at the top of the junior doctor pay scale and it’s a somewhat above average teacher salary, but, sure, it could. I think a household earning £100k is well off.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
You have the Tories to thank for that. As I said, the cost of VAT on school fees is a fraction of the cost of payroll tax rises over the last parliament.
Well, no, actually I have the last Labour government in 2009 to thank for that and a certain NickPalmerexMP.
It is true, however, the Tories haven't reversed it. Not even Truss did.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
What did Theresa May say about citizens of nowhere?
The main downside for Labour in the private school VAT policy is that it sucks coverage away from other more important topics on which it should be getting air time.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
I really don’t think this fight ends well for the Tories . Labours rebuttal is they want to make state education better so that less people feel the need to send their kids to private schools . The money from the VAT is going into breakfast clubs for the kids and more teachers . Both seem laudable ambitions . I accept that not all parents who send their kids to private schools are rolling in money but Sunak could end up looking like he’s fighting for the more wealthy which just reinforces the narrative that the Tories don’t care about most voters .
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
What might trouble you is how your situation highlights how pressure most people are these days. If the top end are under pressure, imagine how bad it is elsewhere. For example, at least you have a mortgage and can afford a house.
Yes, and?
You can pursue more than one policy at once.
Thinking this is a bad policy and a counterproductive policy doesn't mean you don't give a shit about the strugglers, strivers and the poor.
There seems to be a position here that it's a good thing if everyone is suffering and losing out in the belief that will somehow drive unity and make for a better society.
It's actually a classically socialist argument, and we've all seen where that story ends before.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
I hear you. Taxes are too high. Much too high for the appalling public services we get. But this is under a *Conservative* government. Your government. The government you are voting for. It isn’t every Labour taxing you because of class war or jealousy. It’s your own side because they have trashed the economy and are catastrophically incompetent.
If the line is “ah but Labour would put taxes up and waste our money” then why are you supporting the party who waste our money and put taxes up? 62%!!! Crackers! How do you drive entrepreneurial behaviour with punitive marginal tax rates?
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
You won't, though, because you are just about managing to scrimp and save, you say elsewhere. You'll end up paying for things that incur 20% VAT. At least that, I think, is the political economic logic.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
What might trouble you is how your situation highlights how pressure most people are these days. If the top end are under pressure, imagine how bad it is elsewhere. For example, at least you have a mortgage and can afford a house.
Yes, and?
You can pursue more than one policy at once.
Thinking this is a bad policy and a counterproductive policy doesn't mean you don't give a shit about the strugglers, strivers and the poor.
There seems to be a position here that it's a good thing if everyone is suffering and losing out in the belief that will somehow drive unity and make for a better society.
It's actually a classically socialist argument, and we've all seen where that story ends before.
Not at all, but it does shine a light on who has greatest need and where finite resources might be prioritised.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
You won't, though, because you are just about managing to scrimp and save, you say elsewhere. You'll end up paying for things that incur 20% VAT. At least that, I think, is the political economic logic.
No, I might actually fuck off.
My wife and I have discussed it.
Like the Remainers and the other minorities on the wrong side of political decisions for the last 14 years. Some with huge financial means can and will, but mostly political minorities have to just accept it.
The main downside for Labour in the private school VAT policy is that it sucks coverage away from other more important topics on which it should be getting air time.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
I really don’t think this fight ends well for the Tories . Labours rebuttal is they want to make state education better so that less people feel the need to send their kids to private schools . The money from the VAT is going into breakfast clubs for the kids and more teachers . Both seem laudable ambitions . I accept that not all parents who send their kids to private schools are rolling in money but Sunak could end up looking like he’s fighting for the more wealthy which just reinforces the narrative that the Tories don’t care about most voters .
I think the private school thing is an example of where the right are confused about people's attitude to public services.
It's true that the NHS can be really bad at times. Mistakes, massive waiting lists, horrible buildings and infrastructure. And state schools are made of crumbly concrete, have large class sizes, disruptive kids, limited provision for children with additional support needs. Buses and trains are always late. The police don't investigate burglaries.
This does not mean that people dislike the idea of a good NHS, publicly funded public transport or police service, or want to send their kids to private school. Concerns over VAT on private education ultimately stems from a deep dissatisfaction with state education from upper middle class parents - the rich can swallow the increase, as they have over the last 10 years.
Education is barely relevant though, sadly. The issues that people bring up are immigration, the NHS and the cost of living.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
You can object all you like. I do not wish to put any limits on your voicing objections.
I don’t believe that just any level of taxation is appropriate for those in the upper brackets. I’ve never said that. I do think levels of taxation for those in the upper brackets are relatively low compared to what they were in my parents’ generation.
I earn well. I’m in the top decile by income. I don’t object to paying more tax.
I look forward to the 5th July with Starmer heading to the Palace and Labour taking a dominant position in politics across the UK and moving on
Starmer and Labour are in this position as they are the change candidates and the conservatives have simply lost the country, but significantly there is no great love for Labour and it seems that their policies are long term goals, even 2 term ones, so the question will be just how patient the electorate are to see results
The main downside for Labour in the private school VAT policy is that it sucks coverage away from other more important topics on which it should be getting air time.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
I really don’t think this fight ends well for the Tories . Labours rebuttal is they want to make state education better so that less people feel the need to send their kids to private schools . The money from the VAT is going into breakfast clubs for the kids and more teachers . Both seem laudable ambitions . I accept that not all parents who send their kids to private schools are rolling in money but Sunak could end up looking like he’s fighting for the more wealthy which just reinforces the narrative that the Tories don’t care about most voters .
The way that ends badly for Labour is when you point out that this policy might well cost more through extra state school places than it raises in revenue.
Chamberlain’s tariff reform proposal - put tariffs on imported wheat to keep it out, then use the money raised from the tariffs levied on wheat that was er, not being imported because of them - springs to mind.
But again, the more serious issue is they not only don’t seem to know how to improve state provision but they aren’t even aware of the actual problems.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
What might trouble you is how your situation highlights how pressure most people are these days. If the top end are under pressure, imagine how bad it is elsewhere. For example, at least you have a mortgage and can afford a house.
Yes, and?
You can pursue more than one policy at once.
Thinking this is a bad policy and a counterproductive policy doesn't mean you don't give a shit about the strugglers, strivers and the poor.
There seems to be a position here that it's a good thing if everyone is suffering and losing out in the belief that will somehow drive unity and make for a better society.
It's actually a classically socialist argument, and we've all seen where that story ends before.
I took jonathan's point to be that it won't politically be a winning argument because of how much most people are under pressure.
Obviously people disagree about whether it's a good or bad policy, and whether the public in general agrees with it wouldn't change whether something is actually good or bad so that point can still be made as you are indeed doing, but if it is something most people don't think will affect them even aspirationally, and when basic things all over seem to be struggling, then at the very least it would be understandable if the public response is a big shrug to the idea.
Of course, the public shrug over most ideas, and of course they may regret that later. But with problems being as they are something has to be really egregious in how it affects most people to get traction.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
I hear you. Taxes are too high. Much too high for the appalling public services we get. But this is under a *Conservative* government. Your government. The government you are voting for. It isn’t every Labour taxing you because of class war or jealousy. It’s your own side because they have trashed the economy and are catastrophically incompetent.
If the line is “ah but Labour would put taxes up and waste our money” then why are you supporting the party who waste our money and put taxes up? 62%!!! Crackers! How do you drive entrepreneurial behaviour with punitive marginal tax rates?
You’re voting for it though, so you support it.
Absolute nonsense.
Labour will go further, faster, and raise the tax burden even more - we all know this. The Tories haven't addressed it in the way I'd like them to - sure - but they have recently cut NI, the freeze in PA is due to expire in just under 4 years, and there's a path to restore budget balance. I know where I'd be at the end of the next parliament.
I vote for the least worst option. It doesn't mean I think it's a brilliant option or that I'm blind to its flaws.
Your position seems to be that nothing could conceivably be worse than what we currently have, which is myopic and hysterical.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
You won't, though, because you are just about managing to scrimp and save, you say elsewhere. You'll end up paying for things that incur 20% VAT. At least that, I think, is the political economic logic.
No, I might actually fuck off.
My wife and I have discussed it.
Like the Remainers and the other minorities on the wrong side of political decisions for the last 14 years. Some with huge financial means can and will, but mostly political minorities have to just accept it.
We’re lucky in this country that we still have more options for migration than most around the world. It’s harder into the EU since Brexit but still far easier than for most. No need to pay people-smugglers thousands to sneak us across the Med or the channel.
At first glance it’s a total impoverished dump with nothing going for it. Investigate further and it’s truly charming. Also really good food and superb wine
Great people as well. And it’s absurdly cheap
Solution. VAT on private school fees but all parents affected get a free holiday in Moldova.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Closing down hundreds of Sure Start centres was far more anti-aspiration than asking private schools to find savings so that a small number of their clients can still afford to use them.
An, an eye for an eye.
Here's the problem: this policy won't raise a penny to help the problems of the state sector.
But it's interesting that you don't really care about that.
So you say.
We can't be sure about that without doing the experiment, though the experts who have looked at this think it will be revenue-positive for the government. And both schools highlighted by the Telegraph were clearly in a bad way financially before this plan was a gleam in a lefty's eye.
I am all for a much more honest conversation about tax and spend, which I'm pretty sure boils down to "we've been in fiscal la la land for decades, expect to pay more and get less." But nobody is offering that and it's in nobody's interest to go first.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
What did Theresa May say about citizens of nowhere?
I have no desire to stay here to be exploited by a resentful and vengeful populace pursuing policies I think will be destructive to the country at my personal expense.
It's better I take action that will show up their bankruptcy as fast as possible, so the scales fall from people's eyes and the country sobers up as fast as possible.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
You won't, though, because you are just about managing to scrimp and save, you say elsewhere. You'll end up paying for things that incur 20% VAT. At least that, I think, is the political economic logic.
No, I might actually fuck off.
My wife and I have discussed it.
Like the Remainers and the other minorities on the wrong side of political decisions for the last 14 years. Some with huge financial means can and will, but mostly political minorities have to just accept it.
No need to pay people-smugglers thousands to sneak us across the Med or the channel.
The main downside for Labour in the private school VAT policy is that it sucks coverage away from other more important topics on which it should be getting air time.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
I really don’t think this fight ends well for the Tories . Labours rebuttal is they want to make state education better so that less people feel the need to send their kids to private schools . The money from the VAT is going into breakfast clubs for the kids and more teachers . Both seem laudable ambitions . I accept that not all parents who send their kids to private schools are rolling in money but Sunak could end up looking like he’s fighting for the more wealthy which just reinforces the narrative that the Tories don’t care about most voters .
I think the private school thing is an example of where the right are confused about people's attitude to public services.
It's true that the NHS can be really bad at times. Mistakes, massive waiting lists, horrible buildings and infrastructure. And state schools are made of crumbly concrete, have large class sizes, disruptive kids, limited provision for children with additional support needs. Buses and trains are always late. The police don't investigate burglaries.
This does not mean that people dislike the idea of a good NHS, publicly funded public transport or police service, or want to send their kids to private school. Concerns over VAT on private education ultimately stems from a deep dissatisfaction with state education from upper middle class parents - the rich can swallow the increase, as they have over the last 10 years.
Education is barely relevant though, sadly. The issues that people bring up are immigration, the NHS and the cost of living.
The NHS is an interesting one.
Actually seeing the edges of the next “organisational incompetence killing people scandal” in the treatment of a relative. May write a header when I have time.
It’s interesting because enough staff are present, and the solution to the problem was (accidently) enunciated by a consultant.
Mr. Stereodog, some private schools are hugely expensive. Others could be afforded by many people but at the cost of forgoing holidays and other thing. The former will not be sunk or hit too hard by a VAT rise. The latter will be.
Do many families spend £17 500 on holidays each year? That is the average independent school fees before VAT.
You can easily drop 3-5k on a family summer holiday in July or August, which we are foregoing this year. The rest (10k or so) you account for by older cars, fewer weekend trips and a smaller house/mortgage and maybe reduced payments on top.
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
£100k joint income would put that household in about the top 7%. The proportion of kids in private schools is about 7%. So, yes, that matches.
Why are you so fixated with percentiles?
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
What might trouble you is how your situation highlights how pressure most people are these days. If the top end are under pressure, imagine how bad it is elsewhere. For example, at least you have a mortgage and can afford a house.
Yes, and?
You can pursue more than one policy at once.
Thinking this is a bad policy and a counterproductive policy doesn't mean you don't give a shit about the strugglers, strivers and the poor.
There seems to be a position here that it's a good thing if everyone is suffering and losing out in the belief that will somehow drive unity and make for a better society.
It's actually a classically socialist argument, and we've all seen where that story ends before.
Not at all, but it does shine a light on who has greatest need and where finite resources might be prioritised.
How about we expand those finite resources by not pursuing policies that might shrink it?
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
You won't, though, because you are just about managing to scrimp and save, you say elsewhere. You'll end up paying for things that incur 20% VAT. At least that, I think, is the political economic logic.
The main downside for Labour in the private school VAT policy is that it sucks coverage away from other more important topics on which it should be getting air time.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
I really don’t think this fight ends well for the Tories . Labours rebuttal is they want to make state education better so that less people feel the need to send their kids to private schools . The money from the VAT is going into breakfast clubs for the kids and more teachers . Both seem laudable ambitions . I accept that not all parents who send their kids to private schools are rolling in money but Sunak could end up looking like he’s fighting for the more wealthy which just reinforces the narrative that the Tories don’t care about most voters .
Labour's 'ambitions' are to recruit 0.25 teachers per school.
Which is a lower rate that what has happened since 2010:
Anyone know when manifestos might drop? I know it has not been long since the annoucement, and some parties will be making up policies on the hoof, but I do look forward to reading them.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
You can object all you like. I do not wish to put any limits on your voicing objections.
I don’t believe that just any level of taxation is appropriate for those in the upper brackets. I’ve never said that. I do think levels of taxation for those in the upper brackets are relatively low compared to what they were in my parents’ generation.
I earn well. I’m in the top decile by income. I don’t object to paying more tax.
There are pots other than directly felt payroll taxes that could raise significant money to cover our unfolding demographic disaster.
If I were in government I’d look to broadening the base for VAT - it’s been narrowed too far - and potentially up the rate a bit. Ireland has a 23% rate for example. I’d then also look at employer (not employee) NI: that’s the area where we are outliers compared with much of Europe and it’s an obvious place from which to fund pension and social care commitments.
The main objection to employer NI is “tax on jobs” but we have very low unemployment currently, and this doesn’t have the same behavioural impact as those high marginal rates for individuals.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
What did Theresa May say about citizens of nowhere?
I have no desire to stay here to be exploited by a resentful and vengeful populace pursuing policies I think will be destructive to the country at my personal expense.
It's better I take action that will show up their bankruptcy as fast as possible, so the scales fall from people's eyes and the country sobers up as fast as possible.
It’s amazing you can be so self-sacrificing about this, but so reluctant to be self-sacrificing when it comes to paying tax.
For some levity - we now have Welsh pensioners campaigning for 20mph limits when roads happen to pass by their homes. The man is blocking the road like a JSO activist to prevent the council putting up a national speed limit sign.
Is it that weird that Labour has policies that don't appeal to £150k earners, the private education industry and people who think the latter-day Tory Party are milquetoast lefties?
OK, so maybe I'll fuck off and take all my tax revenue with me, if that's your attitude. Then see who's going to fill your coffers for your class war.
How about that?
What did Theresa May say about citizens of nowhere?
I have no desire to stay here to be exploited by a resentful and vengeful populace pursuing policies I think will be destructive to the country at my personal expense.
It's better I take action that will show up their bankruptcy as fast as possible, so the scales fall from people's eyes and the country sobers up as fast as possible.
1. You're paying 62% tax 2. They trashed the economy 3. They trashed public services
But you'd have to leave if Labour got in because they will be destructive to the country...
It is just gone 7.30am at The Priory primary school in Wednesbury, near Walsall, and already a dozen or so children – known as the “early birds” – have been dropped off so their parents can get to work. Some are jumping through hula hoops and others are just chatting at breakfast tables covered with smart red gingham cloths. The welcoming smell of toast fills the hall as more arrive.
This corner of the West Midlands is one of the most deprived parts of England, where poverty is rife. If teachers and staff here were not on hand to provide their charges with a good breakfast, they know many would arrive with empty stomachs, and then be unable to focus in class.
“It is so important,” says Elaine Dickenson, the school business manager who is overseeing the group. She sees the difference it makes to behaviour every day. “A full tummy means they can concentrate much better during lessons and for the rest of the day.” Dickenson is also able, from years of experience, to spot those in particular need. “You just know,” she says, “from the way they are dressed. You just have this sixth sense.”
There are kids that don't even get a good breakfast. They need help too.
I’m not sure the answer to every question is for the state or its agencies to arrogate the function to themselves. Whilst breakfast clubs, free school meals, after school and supper clubs all alleviate certain needs. I do wonder if they are necessarily the correct answer. You could make the case that the cumulative effects is the wholesale nationalisation of childhood.
There is also an increasing trend in western societies for the privatisation of choice and the socialisation of the consequences of poor choices. In terms of child nutrition whilst the ultimate responsibility ought to devolve upon the parents, not schools or wider society, to feed their children that doesn’t mean they should be left unassisted in the discharge of that responsibility. How you calibrate that assistance should be up for discussion, but simply signalling the wholesale transference of it to the state seems unlikely to end in a truly desirable place.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
You can object all you like. I do not wish to put any limits on your voicing objections.
I don’t believe that just any level of taxation is appropriate for those in the upper brackets. I’ve never said that. I do think levels of taxation for those in the upper brackets are relatively low compared to what they were in my parents’ generation.
I earn well. I’m in the top decile by income. I don’t object to paying more tax.
There are pots other than directly felt payroll taxes that could raise significant money to cover our unfolding demographic disaster.
If I were in government I’d look to broadening the base for VAT - it’s been narrowed too far - and potentially up the rate a bit. Ireland has a 23% rate for example. I’d then also look at employer (not employee) NI: that’s the area where we are outliers compared with much of Europe and it’s an obvious place from which to fund pension and social care commitments.
The main objection to employer NI is “tax on jobs” but we have very low unemployment currently, and this doesn’t have the same behavioural impact as those high marginal rates for individuals.
VAT tends to be regressive though. No chance of an increase under Labour.
Wes Streeting gave a good defence for the VAT on private schools on QT .
The vast majority of kids going to private schools come from families where the fees are loose change !
As for parents who really juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees it’s of course unfortunate and I can understand why they would be angry .
The Labour policy is really just a sop to the left in the party , raises relatively small sums but you’ll be hard pressed to find much sympathy amongst most of the public.
This really riles me.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
You’re household income is in the… what… top 5% of the country?
Anyone paying for private school is going to have a salary in the top 20%, or so, unless they have a big inheritance, bursary, scholarship or are an employee of the school. Otherwise, you couldn't afford the fees. The fees are significant and we are in the position, as you put it, of needing to 'juggle the finances to be able to afford the fees'. And there's a whole world of difference between being in the top 20% and the top 0.01%, even though it's convenient for Streeting to conflate them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
Are you just in the top 20%, or are you actually in the top 5%?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
Sure, but the position of some seems to be that if you're in the upper brackets you have no grounds to object no matter what your tax rate is, because others have less.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
I hear you. Taxes are too high. Much too high for the appalling public services we get. But this is under a *Conservative* government. Your government. The government you are voting for. It isn’t every Labour taxing you because of class war or jealousy. It’s your own side because they have trashed the economy and are catastrophically incompetent.
If the line is “ah but Labour would put taxes up and waste our money” then why are you supporting the party who waste our money and put taxes up? 62%!!! Crackers! How do you drive entrepreneurial behaviour with punitive marginal tax rates?
You’re voting for it though, so you support it.
Absolute nonsense.
but they have recently cut NI, the freeze in PA is due to expire in just under 4 years, and there's a path to restore budget balance. I
No there isn't. The NI cuts were based on 13% cuts in Government spending but when asked to explain where the cuts will come from no detail has been provided because the cuts cannot be found.
I (and 55% of the population looking at a survey question Guido is talking about) expect to see an October budget with tax rises because the cuts that the NI cuts were based on don't actually exist and can't be implemented.
Worse those cuts are to the existing services and in many places (justice, education) the existing services are already not good enough...
I mean, I guess if you don't set a target then you cannot miss it, but in that case does saying you think it should come down really mean anything at all?
First up to join Laura on the show is Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper who is asked about migration - in particular, how many more people she thinks should be allowed legally to live in the country.
Cooper acknowledges there has been a big increase in work migration, explaining "work visas have doubled" in recent years.
"We think that is a problem," Cooper tells Laura. She says it must come down and factors driving it need to be tackled.
Laura asks again how many people should be allowed to come to the UK.
Cooper says Labour "is not setting a target". She adds that from one year to another there are variations, citing the homes for Ukraine scheme and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Comments
Since this broadly represents the % of jobs in the professional and managerial classes, including journalism, media, 3rd sector, and lead public sector roles equivalent to the same, we shouldn't be surprised it's a subject of interest on here given it's broadly where most pb regulars are at.
If this is an attempt to target Reform voters, it's doomed to fail. They are less likely to have a university education than the rest of population, and I'd guess a private education too. And less likely to have school age children.
That's what it's about.
Truthfully though what bothers me more about this is not so much Labour's ineptitude as that it seems to be about the only education policy they have. They seem utterly oblivious to the enormous crisis currently engulfing the state sector.
Between academy chains that suck out resources and damage school performance through inept micro-managing, falsified OFSTED reports, an inspection framework that even when not falsified is highly damaging to children's education particularly by making it harder for them to learn to read, an ageing stock of buildings some of which are literally falling down, teacher recruitment and retention at record lows and falling, an exam system designed by people who appear to have the intellect of stuffed cabbages, which is about to move online in an uncontrolled and unfunded way, and collapsing pupil numbers, and an administrative system that is generally seen as staffed exclusively by lying drunks the sector really is facing a series of existential threats.
And their solution? VAT on private school fees!
Which will make precisely fuck all difference to any of it.
I can assure you it's not "loose change" in our home, or for most of my fellow parents at our local school. What a dickhead Streeting is.
We are two hard-working parents working full-time in professional jobs and we need to scrimp and save for every penny.
We have little in assets and a heavy mortgage. We manage it because we make sacrifices and are careful, not because we're rolling in it.
Their purpose is to provide some time for professional development and training of teachers.
Oh, I really should check the whole thread before replying.
The Tories are going to hate it as the risk to specialist special needs schools was about the only part of the consequences that got any traction and yet within a few days of the issue being mentioned the issue has been fixed and the problem closed off
It's nearly offensive that you don't realise that. 100,000 kids in state care. A 28% increase in the number of households renting. A crashing fertility rate because people my age cannot afford to have kids in the first place, let alone send them to private school!
I'd say if you have one earner on 40k and another on 60k private school for one child becomes feasible post tax in the south-east.
You can possibly do it on lower salaries if you stretch yourself. Otherwise, you're into others helping you out, bursaries or scholarships.
It had echos of the article Blair did before the Sun endorsed him.
Instead differentiate and support the institutions with a genuine charitable mission. Say if they offer 50% free unselected places local catchment or a mission to help kids falling through the system , I might buy more into the idea that they are a charity.
Great.
But still, to be fair, something of an irrelevance to the real issues I've noted above.
At first glance it’s a total impoverished dump with nothing going for it. Investigate further and it’s truly charming. Also really good food and superb wine
Great people as well. And it’s absurdly cheap
I have no doubt that people have to carefully manage their budgets as CR describes. Very carefully. But what a blessed position to find yourself in where that is even an option.
Meanwhile, for the other 95% of people where that isn’t an option, the question is why I am worse off than last time, why I can’t see a doctor, why there are turds in the water, why the council can’t afford to pick litter or cut grass or repair potholes, why everything costs so much more than it did etc etc.
This corner of the West Midlands is one of the most deprived parts of England, where poverty is rife. If teachers and staff here were not on hand to provide their charges with a good breakfast, they know many would arrive with empty stomachs, and then be unable to focus in class.
“It is so important,” says Elaine Dickenson, the school business manager who is overseeing the group. She sees the difference it makes to behaviour every day. “A full tummy means they can concentrate much better during lessons and for the rest of the day.” Dickenson is also able, from years of experience, to spot those in particular need. “You just know,” she says, “from the way they are dressed. You just have this sixth sense.”
‘I’m a stuntman with no pension – should I sell four of my Lamborghinis and buy gold?’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/money-makeover-stuntman-five-lamborghinis-no-pension/ (£££)
Stuffed cabbages can be a noble dish. Please do not compare the people who err…. design?!!!???.. the exam system to them.
We've got to the position we're in our professional careers after 20 years of hard work having started out with nothing and that's a place we've only been in for the last 3 years and we no liquid wealth or assets to fall back on.
Why are Labour so anti-aspiration?
(£38,000 after taxes and benefits, 6 time larger)
Part of the reason for this inequality is the regressive nature of... VAT
The real issue is the middle ground of schools who don’t hit say 30% of free school meals so some how need to cover it from other budget issues. Weak around care in primary schools is an interesting area where I’m 100% sure things were easier to run before 2010 but I’m no where as close to the details as I was then
Here’s the Romanian version but the Moldovan versions are smaller and even nicer
https://cristinaskitchen.com/sarmale-traditional-romanian-cabbage-rolls/
Every true Labour activist knows who the real enemy is.
My figures could include for a junior doctor and a teacher who are married or cohabiting and working full-time.
Do you think they're rich?
How about that?
I’m not voting for Labour. I don’t know whether they are anti-aspiration. I am, however, OK with those at the top of the income pile contributing more. I’m sure you work hard, but so do many people on lower wages.
The amounts at stake are relatively small. As a tax rise it’s dwarfed by just one year’s worth of the tax threshold freezes the current government have enacted. Yet the Tories are managing to make it seem much more financially important.
I pay 62% marginal rate at the moment, with not only no personal allowance but also on a Z-code.
At some point you wonder: why do I bother?
Incidentally about 15% of our Med School applicants claim some sort of special need, mostly on some variation of neurodiversity. As we say in my trade "there's a lot of it about"
Here's the problem: this policy won't raise a penny to help the problems of the state sector.
But it's interesting that you don't really care about that.
I genuinely thought Moldova was gonna be Meh. A tick in a box. Another country visited. A post communist toilet. How pleasant to be totally wrong
It’s not beautiful it’s not rich it’s not amazingly historic (tho it has some jewels). It has one fifteenth of one unesco site. It has no mountains no deserts no extraordinary landscapes
It is complete proof that a country really is its people. And Moldovans are great. Exceptionally friendly and hospitable and - because they get so few tourists - incredibly pleased to see you
Your figures could include a junior doctor and a teacher. It would have to be someone at the top of the junior doctor pay scale and it’s a somewhat above average teacher salary, but, sure, it could. I think a household earning £100k is well off.
It is true, however, the Tories haven't reversed it. Not even Truss did.
That's not how swingback is supposed to happen.
It's only one poll, but I think it's about as significant as a single poll can be.
You can pursue more than one policy at once.
Thinking this is a bad policy and a counterproductive policy doesn't mean you don't give a shit about the strugglers, strivers and the poor.
There seems to be a position here that it's a good thing if everyone is suffering and losing out in the belief that will somehow drive unity and make for a better society.
It's actually a classically socialist argument, and we've all seen where that story ends before.
If the line is “ah but Labour would put taxes up and waste our money” then why are you supporting the party who waste our money and put taxes up? 62%!!! Crackers! How do you drive entrepreneurial behaviour with punitive marginal tax rates?
You’re voting for it though, so you support it.
My wife and I have discussed it.
It's true that the NHS can be really bad at times. Mistakes, massive waiting lists, horrible buildings and infrastructure. And state schools are made of crumbly concrete, have large class sizes, disruptive kids, limited provision for children with additional support needs. Buses and trains are always late. The police don't investigate burglaries.
This does not mean that people dislike the idea of a good NHS, publicly funded public transport or police service, or want to send their kids to private school. Concerns over VAT on private education ultimately stems from a deep dissatisfaction with state education from upper middle class parents - the rich can swallow the increase, as they have over the last 10 years.
Education is barely relevant though, sadly. The issues that people bring up are immigration, the NHS and the cost of living.
I don’t believe that just any level of taxation is appropriate for those in the upper brackets. I’ve never said that. I do think levels of taxation for those in the upper brackets are relatively low compared to what they were in my parents’ generation.
I earn well. I’m in the top decile by income. I don’t object to paying more tax.
I look forward to the 5th July with Starmer heading to the Palace and Labour taking a dominant position in politics across the UK and moving on
Starmer and Labour are in this position as they are the change candidates and the conservatives have simply lost the country, but significantly there is no great love for Labour and it seems that their policies are long term goals, even 2 term ones, so the question will be just how patient the electorate are to see results
Chamberlain’s tariff reform proposal - put tariffs on imported wheat to keep it out, then use the money raised from the tariffs levied on wheat that was er, not being imported because of them - springs to mind.
But again, the more serious issue is they not only don’t seem to know how to improve state provision but they aren’t even aware of the actual problems.
Obviously people disagree about whether it's a good or bad policy, and whether the public in general agrees with it wouldn't change whether something is actually good or bad so that point can still be made as you are indeed doing, but if it is something most people don't think will affect them even aspirationally, and when basic things all over seem to be struggling, then at the very least it would be understandable if the public response is a big shrug to the idea.
Of course, the public shrug over most ideas, and of course they may regret that later. But with problems being as they are something has to be really egregious in how it affects most people to get traction.
Labour will go further, faster, and raise the tax burden even more - we all know this. The Tories haven't addressed it in the way I'd like them to - sure - but they have recently cut NI, the freeze in PA is due to expire in just under 4 years, and there's a path to restore budget balance. I know where I'd be at the end of the next parliament.
I vote for the least worst option. It doesn't mean I think it's a brilliant option or that I'm blind to its flaws.
Your position seems to be that nothing could conceivably be worse than what we currently have, which is myopic and hysterical.
Job’s a good ‘un.
We can't be sure about that without doing the experiment, though the experts who have looked at this think it will be revenue-positive for the government. And both schools highlighted by the Telegraph were clearly in a bad way financially before this plan was a gleam in a lefty's eye.
I am all for a much more honest conversation about tax and spend, which I'm pretty sure boils down to "we've been in fiscal la la land for decades, expect to pay more and get less." But nobody is offering that and it's in nobody's interest to go first.
So we have dismal little offerings like this.
It's better I take action that will show up their bankruptcy as fast as possible, so the scales fall from people's eyes and the country sobers up as fast as possible.
Actually seeing the edges of the next “organisational incompetence killing people scandal” in the treatment of a relative. May write a header when I have time.
It’s interesting because enough staff are present, and the solution to the problem was (accidently) enunciated by a consultant.
Which is a lower rate that what has happened since 2010:
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england
Now this might work out electorally for the reason you gave but as a strategy to improve state education its going to have zero effect.
If I were in government I’d look to broadening the base for VAT - it’s been narrowed too far - and potentially up the rate a bit. Ireland has a 23% rate for example. I’d then also look at employer (not employee) NI: that’s the area where we are outliers compared with much of Europe and it’s an obvious place from which to fund pension and social care commitments.
The main objection to employer NI is “tax on jobs” but we have very low unemployment currently, and this doesn’t have the same behavioural impact as those high marginal rates for individuals.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-blocks-council-installing-national-29258750#comments-wrapper
2. They trashed the economy
3. They trashed public services
But you'd have to leave if Labour got in because they will be destructive to the country...
There is also an increasing trend in western societies for the privatisation of choice and the socialisation of the consequences of poor choices. In terms of child nutrition whilst the ultimate responsibility ought to devolve upon the parents, not schools or wider society, to feed their children that doesn’t mean they should be left unassisted in the discharge of that responsibility. How you calibrate that assistance should be up for discussion, but simply signalling the wholesale transference of it to the state seems unlikely to end in a truly desirable place.
I (and 55% of the population looking at a survey question Guido is talking about) expect to see an October budget with tax rises because the cuts that the NI cuts were based on don't actually exist and can't be implemented.
Worse those cuts are to the existing services and in many places (justice, education) the existing services are already not good enough...
First up to join Laura on the show is Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper who is asked about migration - in particular, how many more people she thinks should be allowed legally to live in the country.
Cooper acknowledges there has been a big increase in work migration, explaining "work visas have doubled" in recent years.
"We think that is a problem," Cooper tells Laura. She says it must come down and factors driving it need to be tackled.
Laura asks again how many people should be allowed to come to the UK.
Cooper says Labour "is not setting a target". She adds that from one year to another there are variations, citing the homes for Ukraine scheme and the Covid-19 pandemic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69082668