Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
Shades of the 45p tax rate. "But it sends the right signals!"
What about using OFSTED inspectors to send signals? Fly them as flags or some such?
I suspect ydoethur would be fully on board with hoisting ofsted inspectors up a flagpole on the end of a rope
INcorrect.
No flag pole or rope has ever done anything to deserve such a foul punishment.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
To correct a misconception I think you have:
An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.
Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.
A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.
One added twist, which it feels worth pointing out.
An individual school can have a comprehensive admissions policy by itself, but its intake depends also on the policies of the schools around it. Any comprehensive that is a plausible commute from a grammar school is unlikely to be fully comprehensive, because some of the top few percent of its intake will go to the grammar school instead.
It's a bit of a simplification to say that creating one grammar school inevitably creates four secondary moderns, but it helps explain why comprehensivisation was popular, why there's so little demand to create grammar schools in areas that don't have them and why the pressure in places like Kent is to make their selective schools less selective by adding more places to them.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
That is a possibility but I would point at the french who introduced a wealth tax and the result was?
Was it a wealth tax? I thought Holland went with a 75% tax on income?
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
Changing very significantly, albeit at the cost of the uni. See my post just before yours.
Yebbut because I am no longer a "senior academic" I cannot access even my own publications without paying through the nose to the likes of Elsevier
Quite. The older publications remain a major issue (no pun intended).
It's interesting that threads on education do seem to stay on topic the longest.
Maybe that's a sign that everybody has a decided opinion on it?
The thing is with education is that everyone has had one, and many people who have had children are experiencing it a second time. One of the reasons I feel sorry for teachers is that they work in a field in which all their customers are experts and have very firm opinions about how teaching should be done (unlike, say, dentists) - usually 'how it was in my day'. Whereas with subjects about, say, refugees - very few of us have any particularly relevant first hand experience to draw upon. Just as valid a subject, but fewer insights.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
Go on, set out which wealth you tax, how often and at what rates.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
You're out of date, I'm afraid. Over 80% of what I publish has been open access for the last 5 years.
Edit: had a quick look. More than 90%. And anything that isn't, we make it available through things like ResearchGate.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
That is a possibility but I would point at the french who introduced a wealth tax and the result was?
Was it a wealth tax? I thought Holland went with a 75% tax on income?
I thought it was a wealth tax but I could be wrong on that
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
To correct a misconception I think you have:
An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.
Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.
A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.
One added twist, which it feels worth pointing out.
An individual school can have a comprehensive admissions policy by itself, but its intake depends also on the policies of the schools around it. Any comprehensive that is a plausible commute from a grammar school is unlikely to be fully comprehensive, because some of the top few percent of its intake will go to the grammar school instead.
It's a bit of a simplification to say that creating one grammar school inevitably creates four secondary moderns, but it helps explain why comprehensivisation was popular, why there's so little demand to create grammar schools in areas that don't have them and why the pressure in places like Kent is to make their selective schools less selective by adding more places to them.
Of course, that also presupposes a F*** You Jimmy I'm OK mentality in the grammar school enthusiasts.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
Go on, set out which wealth you tax, how often and at what rates.
Real property for starters
Sorry, what do you mean by "real" property?
Related to, but now quite the same as, Real Estate -
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
Go on, set out which wealth you tax, how often and at what rates.
Land. Initially at a nominal value (say 0.01% of total land worth per year). Give it a few years to bed in. Then ratchet it up, reducing income tax on a 1-1 basis. By 2040 when most of the boomers have died and left their houses to their children, we'll have a society where wealth taxes are acceptable and understood
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Agree with all that - but as a subset of this discussion, worth noting that a disproportionate ones of those who do move countries are also those who pay a lot of tax.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Sure, notionally 80% FEC for much of what we do (NIHR and co) and lower than FEC reckonings for charities (without/with reduced overheads etc). Yet my department, with little teaching, is still solvent. That may be due to invisible subsidies from the university, e.g. not passing on the true cost of estates etc, of course.
On publishing, that's also covered, mostly by ring-fenced grant money. All our grants, pretty much, include specific budgets for open access publishing. There is some university subsidising of open access outwith that, but it's not a huge amount (again, in my area, at least). There have, of course, been university repositories for authors' accepted copies etc for longer.
Universities certainly have a better case than most private schools.
Just when you are prepared to make an exception for Ben Wallace on the list of Tory jerks, he starts asking for Ukrainian "gratitude", rather than expressing gratitude to Ukraine for the huge sacrifices they are making in the defence of the civilised world.
So even Ben Wallace is a jerk. The sooner this cynical, pathetic bunch of useless nonentities leave power, the better.
I suspect it’s just sour grapes after the US veto of his getting the top NATO post.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Agree with all that - but as a subset of this discussion, worth noting that a disproportionate ones of those who do move countries are also those who pay a lot of tax.
Because they have skillsets that are in demand both in the UK and elsewhere.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
I went to a sink comp, my wife went to a high-achieving private school. We've ended up in roughly the same place.
I'm not sure what that says or what you can extrapolate from it. But it doesn't sell private education to me, even if we could afford it.
There are studies showing that if you adjust for the relatively advantaged intake the independent sector achieves similar results to the state sector. If true this would mean private schools underperform on a vfm basis since their per pupil spend is higher.
Of well, at least the government is saving the £7bn it would cost to educate those currently wasting their money on the private education.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
If making private schools more expensive costs the country money because more kids enter the public sector, then it logically follows that making private schools cheaper should save the country money because fewer kids enter the public sector. The only question is where, as Cookie says, the sweet spot lies.
Well not necessarily, because where the sweet spot is will depend on several factors, some of which will be straight lines and some curved. My suspicion is indeed that the sweet spot is some way to the right of here - that there is the capacity to improve the lot of state schools by moving kids to the private sector. Indeed, we used to do this - the brightest state school children would be given scholarships to private schools paid for by the state. Though arguably they aren't the ones we should be getting out of mainstream education!
Sure. Where that sweet spot will be is complicated. I suspect that the sweet spot is further to the left, i.e. we should have VAT on private school fees. The analysis already posted supports that.
You raise a separate issue: is a policy that saves the country money, but increases inequality, acceptable? I can't see a manifesto pledge to subsidise public schools being very popular.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
"Spending more on X would mean spending less on Y" is the kind of thing only the truly heroically clueless would come out with. It doesn't work like that.
In aggregate it ultimately does mean that. If the government hired a million people to be teachers, that would reduce the capacity of the rest of the economy by a million people.
Not really, since the working population also isn't a static quantity. People come in and out of work and in and out of the country. Economies are complex, and any view that relies on the implicit notion of dividing up a fixed-size pie is likely to be wrong. Perhaps in some very specific cases like the amount of land available it's more or less fixed, but government budgets and working populations have a certain amount of elasticity.
A certain amount, but not an infinite amount, and if any economic actor can't afford to ignore trade-offs at the macro level, it's the state.
Yes, agreed. Like an elastic band round a pile of 50 leaflets. You can make it go around 30, or 100. But put it around a single leaflet and it'll squash the paper, and put around 500 leaflets and it'll break. A million extra teachers would have serious knock-on effects. 1 extra teacher is a rounding error.
Incidentally, this is why capitalism is so good. It reduces the need for absolute precision in planning (you can go over, but the lending will start to ramp up your unit costs) and it reduces the need for slack in the system (you don't need a permanent local surplus to account for the locally unexpected). Lending and investment make everything more elastic. It really is a wonderful system.
I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...
This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.
Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.
Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.
Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma
He's a genius
And The Duellists (bonkers, but great). And the Hovis ad…
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
In Banking and IT at that level, there's now a lot of work from home. Already quite a few people are WF.... their choice of country. One guy in my team spends a half his time in Germany, with his parents. They have a home working desk all setup for him. Doesn't even need to bring a computer.
We had a note round not so long ago about this, reminding us that we were not allowed to work abroad except on approved business trips because of Visa and tax regulations post-Brexit. I'm guessing your colleague is an EU Citizen.
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
Changing very significantly, albeit at the cost of the uni. See my post just before yours.
Yebbut because I am no longer a "senior academic" I cannot access even my own publications without paying through the nose to the likes of Elsevier
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.
I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.
Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.
The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.
I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.
Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.
The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.
The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.
Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.
Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.
Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).
Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.
There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.
You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.
This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.
To correct a misconception I think you have:
An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.
Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.
A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.
One added twist, which it feels worth pointing out.
An individual school can have a comprehensive admissions policy by itself, but its intake depends also on the policies of the schools around it. Any comprehensive that is a plausible commute from a grammar school is unlikely to be fully comprehensive, because some of the top few percent of its intake will go to the grammar school instead.
It's a bit of a simplification to say that creating one grammar school inevitably creates four secondary moderns, but it helps explain why comprehensivisation was popular, why there's so little demand to create grammar schools in areas that don't have them and why the pressure in places like Kent is to make their selective schools less selective by adding more places to them.
Yet also grammar schools are even more oversubscribed than outstanding non selective comprehensives and academies and free schools, albeit the pupils have to pass the entrance exam first not just live in the catchment area
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Dunno. Some friends of mine - a youngish family - have just this summer decided to move from Worthing to... Penang. To take up a very generous Digital Nomad Visa offer. And they have young kids
So it is happening. Slowly but surely. People are moving to the sun
Long term this is a horrible threat to cold wintry countries like Britain, Germany, Holland, Canada, etc etc
Unless of course climate change REALLY accelerates and makes Penang and the likes uninhabitable. Which is not impossible. Bangkok was borderline intolerable when I was there in April and they had record breaking temps and deadly wet bulb stuff going on
It's interesting that threads on education do seem to stay on topic the longest.
Maybe that's a sign that everybody has a decided opinion on it?
Well, unlike (say) health, or defence, most people have spent a significant part of their lives in the system. Even if they didn’t learn much about how it’s run.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
But if you (say) subsidised private education to drop fees by 20%, would that not lead to an exodus of a fair number of state-educated children into the private system, thereby saving government money (20% of the average fee being less than the state school spend per person). If that doesn't hold, then why does raising fees by 20% cost the government money?
ETA: Obviously it's complicated and hard to answer, because it depends on what the actual fees would be and income curves etc, but - absent some very interesting curves - it seems on the face of it that the same should likely apply.
I expect it would be revenue negative, yes more would enter I don't think enough would though to counter the subsidy
Interesting. So we're, fortuitously, pretty much at the sweet spot? Possible, of course.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
That is a possibility but I would point at the french who introduced a wealth tax and the result was?
Was it a wealth tax? I thought Holland went with a 75% tax on income?
He did both and Sarkozy was soon trouncing him in polls rerunning the 2012 election. His popularity plumbed the depths, investors fled France and he only lasted a term, did not run for re election and was replaced as President by his Finance Minister, the more pro business Macron when he won the 2017 election
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
But it will mean we have a set of middle class parents determined that their children are taught well who will also be able to put pressure on schools to ensure that the schools improve.
And another set of upper-middle-class parents emigrating to find the best international schools, many of which are either franchises or satellites of existing UK public schools.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Dunno. Some friends of mine - a youngish family - have just this summer decided to move from Worthing to... Penang. To take up a very generous Digital Nomad Visa offer. And they have young kids
So it is happening. Slowly but surely. People are moving to the sun
Long term this is a horrible threat to cold wintry countries like Britain, Germany, Holland, Canada, etc etc
Unless of course climate change REALLY accelerates and makes Penang and the likes uninhabitable. Which is not impossible. Bangkok was borderline intolerable when I was there in April and they had record breaking temps and deadly wet bulb stuff going on
I wouldn't worry too much. People in your political circles are usually found complaining about how many people want to move to this country. As rainswept foggy archipelagos go, we seem to have quite the pull factor for now.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
I know a few people who have moved for work or for love or for other reasons, but I don't know anyone who has moved because of tax rates. But I'm only in the higher rate tax band: maybe I just don't mix with additional rate tax band people enough!
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
That is a possibility but I would point at the french who introduced a wealth tax and the result was?
Was it a wealth tax? I thought Holland went with a 75% tax on income?
Worth saying that a lot of people (including some you wouldn't expect) on here are in favour of a wealth tax via property - using it both to raise money and to replace the mess that is the council tax...
Another option would be to shift council tax or similar into the central Government pot and change the council tax revenue stream to x% of income tax from those in the area...
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
You're out of date, I'm afraid. Over 80% of what I publish has been open access for the last 5 years.
Edit: had a quick look. More than 90%. And anything that isn't, we make it available through things like ResearchGate.
I don't think there's anything I've published that hasn't at least been available as authors' accepted copy in an institutional repository at most one year after publication (I remember at least one paper with the one year embargo). Certainly in the last decade.
ETA: Actually, one book chapter that probably isn't easily accessible without buying the book or having an institutional account with Springer.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
But if you (say) subsidised private education to drop fees by 20%, would that not lead to an exodus of a fair number of state-educated children into the private system, thereby saving government money (20% of the average fee being less than the state school spend per person). If that doesn't hold, then why does raising fees by 20% cost the government money?
ETA: Obviously it's complicated and hard to answer, because it depends on what the actual fees would be and income curves etc, but - absent some very interesting curves - it seems on the face of it that the same should likely apply.
I expect it would be revenue negative, yes more would enter I don't think enough would though to counter the subsidy
Interesting. So we're, fortuitously, pretty much at the sweet spot? Possible, of course.
We probably aren't at the sweetspot not denying it, trouble with sweetspots is they are like the laffer curve, impossible to calculate because how do you calculate human actions
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Sure, notionally 80% FEC for much of what we do (NIHR and co) and lower than FEC reckonings for charities (without/with reduced overheads etc). Yet my department, with little teaching, is still solvent. That may be due to invisible subsidies from the university, e.g. not passing on the true cost of estates etc, of course.
On publishing, that's also covered, mostly by ring-fenced grant money. All our grants, pretty much, include specific budgets for open access publishing. There is some university subsidising of open access outwith that, but it's not a huge amount (again, in my area, at least). There have, of course, been university repositories for authors' accepted copies etc for longer.
Universities certainly have a better case than most private schools.
I would presume that your department is effectively being cross-subsidised by more teaching-active departments elsewhere in the university.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
If making private schools more expensive costs the country money because more kids enter the public sector, then it logically follows that making private schools cheaper should save the country money because fewer kids enter the public sector. The only question is where, as Cookie says, the sweet spot lies.
Well not necessarily, because where the sweet spot is will depend on several factors, some of which will be straight lines and some curved. My suspicion is indeed that the sweet spot is some way to the right of here - that there is the capacity to improve the lot of state schools by moving kids to the private sector. Indeed, we used to do this - the brightest state school children would be given scholarships to private schools paid for by the state. Though arguably they aren't the ones we should be getting out of mainstream education!
Sure. Where that sweet spot will be is complicated. I suspect that the sweet spot is further to the left, i.e. we should have VAT on private school fees. The analysis already posted supports that.
You raise a separate issue: is a policy that saves the country money, but increases inequality, acceptable? I can't see a manifesto pledge to subsidise public schools being very popular.
I think the analysis done in support of the policy is a bit suspect - but that's a separate argument, and I haven't done my own counter-research! So I won't go into that any further. Not least because your second point is more interesting:
If everyone is better off - but some are MUCH better off - then that absolutely should be acceptable. Depressingly, many humans would rather be worse off as long as those better off than them are much worse off.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Dunno. Some friends of mine - a youngish family - have just this summer decided to move from Worthing to... Penang. To take up a very generous Digital Nomad Visa offer. And they have young kids
So it is happening. Slowly but surely. People are moving to the sun
Long term this is a horrible threat to cold wintry countries like Britain, Germany, Holland, Canada, etc etc
Unless of course climate change REALLY accelerates and makes Penang and the likes uninhabitable. Which is not impossible. Bangkok was borderline intolerable when I was there in April and they had record breaking temps and deadly wet bulb stuff going on
I wouldn't worry too much. People in your political circles are usually found complaining about how many people want to move to this country. As rainswept foggy archipelagos go, we seem to have quite the pull factor for now.
Idiot. I live in North London and I'm in the "creative sector". Exactly how many of my friends, or my "political circle", do you think are classic UKIPers and Gammonites?
Britain still has a pull factor of sorts. But our hefty tax rates are already pushing talented people away
It's curious to read these comments -- since there is no similar debate in the US. Instead, there are long-standing arguments about "charter schools":
"Charter schools in the United States are primary or secondary education institutions that are public schools which are publicly funded and operate independently, rather than being overseen by local school districts. Charter schools have a contract with local school districts or other authorizing bodies which allow them to operate. These contracts, or charters, are how charters schools bear their name. They are funded with public tax dollars, though they also fundraise independently. Charter schools are subject to fewer rules than traditional state schools in exchange for greater accountability. Proponents argue that they are meant to serve underserved communities that wish to have alternatives to their neighborhood school. Charters are run as either non-profit or for-profit institutions. However, there are some for-profit management organizations that hold charters, though these are only allowed in Arizona.[2] Only non-profit charters can receive donations from private sources, just the same as traditional public schools.[3]
As of 2016–2017 there were an estimated 6,900 public charter schools in 42 states and the District of Columbia with approximately 3.1 million students, a sixfold increase in enrollment over the past 15 years." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States
Full disclosure: In general, I favor charter schools -- but I recognize that they are not suitable for most rural areas.
(If you are interested in education in the United States, you should read this site from time to time: https://www.joannejacobs.com/ Jacobs is very smart, and very well-informed on American education.)
The UK equalivalent are called “Free Schools”, and have been in place only since about 2011. They seem to work in a similar way to the US Charter Schools, and have a good record of getting kids from poor and minority backgrounds into top universities.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Why would they end up in the best state schools, that would require all 7% of the parents to live within the catchment area of the best state schools and that won't be the real case.
It's interesting that threads on education do seem to stay on topic the longest.
Maybe that's a sign that everybody has a decided opinion on it?
Well, unlike (say) health, or defence, most people have spent a significant part of their lives in the system. Even if they didn’t learn much about how it’s run.
We probably all saw enough to realise that it's not well run.
We've mostly had some experience of 'health' too. Equally not well run.
At 114 hours out (< 5 days), GFS is predicting a temperature of 123°F (50.6°C) with widespread 120°F+ for the central valley of California. This is (was) agricultural land.
(narrator. The British Space programme consists of a 747 that doesn't work, a Scottish spaceport that nobody uses, and that Robin Reliant from Top Gear)
Ofh dear Sunak showing a terrible lack of political nouse in Vilnius.
He started his news conference well - setting out the plans to bring Ukraine into NATO and the progress made generally in supporting them by other means.
But then why oh why did he go off the deeep end all about how wonderful the UK is - not least the comments about the UK giving more than another 20 NATO members. And then banging on about how wonderful our armed forces are. This may or may not all be true but it the sort of stuff you say to a domsetic audience back in the UK not to an international audience at a major NATO conference in Eastern Europe.
It just sounds like crass politicking and self serving glorification. Not the tone he should have been adopting in front of our allies.
And Wallace now telling the Ukrainians to show more gratitude.
It is us who should be grateful. The Ukrainians are stopping Russian aggression with their lives.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Dunno. Some friends of mine - a youngish family - have just this summer decided to move from Worthing to... Penang. To take up a very generous Digital Nomad Visa offer. And they have young kids
So it is happening. Slowly but surely. People are moving to the sun
Long term this is a horrible threat to cold wintry countries like Britain, Germany, Holland, Canada, etc etc
Unless of course climate change REALLY accelerates and makes Penang and the likes uninhabitable. Which is not impossible. Bangkok was borderline intolerable when I was there in April and they had record breaking temps and deadly wet bulb stuff going on
I wouldn't worry too much. People in your political circles are usually found complaining about how many people want to move to this country. As rainswept foggy archipelagos go, we seem to have quite the pull factor for now.
Idiot. I live in North London and I'm in the "creative sector". Exactly how many of my friends, or my "political circle", do you think are classic UKIPers and Gammonites?
Britain still has a pull factor of sorts. But our hefty tax rates are already pushing talented people away
"Legitimate concerns" about immigration are hardly the sole preserve of UKIP (peace be upon them). It's a mainstream view. Your median "we've got too many people coming here" these days is probably a moderate within the Conservative Party (peace be upon them (inshallah))
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
I know a few people who have moved for work or for love or for other reasons, but I don't know anyone who has moved because of tax rates. But I'm only in the higher rate tax band: maybe I just don't mix with additional rate tax band people enough!
Spain is offering a Digital Nomad Visa with a 15% tax rate. Thailand, if you are canny enough, claims 0% tax. Portugal, Greece, Malaysia, all these countries are trying to grab affluent freelancers with enticing tax rates, others are coming along
Or you can stay in Britain in January and pay 45%?
If you don't think that ultimately this will affect our tax base then you're not thinking very hard. You don't need to be on £5 squillion a year to be enticed by 15% tax over 45% tax
On the upside, here's some good news about the UK economy, at last. I know we all need a pep up in these dark times
The Knappers' Gazette have told me they're sending me to a brand new hotel in the Maldives to try "the best scuba diving in the world", in late September. Eight days all exes paid, 5 star and whatnot
So don't be down in the dumps, guys. Enough of the misery guts and Oh Woe. Things really ARE beginning to improve, if hotels and tour ops can afford to do the full on Free Luxury Travel once again. I sense we are turning the corner, there is a brightness to the east
And let's see some smiling faces, shall we, as we all share in this positive news
Er, it's the mention of the Maldives that plunges me into depression again. Bad enough with the insects. And now this ...
"With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world."
Due to the subsidence of the sea mounts and the ocean floor on which they sit, they have survived the equivalent of 4000m of sea level change over several hundred million years. Just look at the ocean depth which surrounds them.
More recently, they and most other coral reefs also survived tens of metres of sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
The problem is really nothing to do with sea level rise, it is because the Maldives were built on to accommodate people, particularly tourists. The natural processes which built the islands in the first place and kept them just above the sea have been stopped.
How can a concrete runway adapt naturally? Any storm debris which would have built up the land is removed.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Why would they end up in the best state schools, that would require all 7% of the parents to live within the catchment area of the best state schools and that won't be the real case.
Because if they can afford private schooling now, they can afford to buy property by overbidding in the catchment areas of the best schools or to offer rents in excess of what the poorer can afford. It really isn't rocket science. They have money they will use it to make sure their offspring into good schools and price the poor out of those areas
At 114 hours out (< 5 days), GFS is predicting a temperature of 123°F (50.6°C) with widespread 120°F+ for the central valley of California. This is (was) agricultural land.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
Dunno. Some friends of mine - a youngish family - have just this summer decided to move from Worthing to... Penang. To take up a very generous Digital Nomad Visa offer. And they have young kids
So it is happening. Slowly but surely. People are moving to the sun
Long term this is a horrible threat to cold wintry countries like Britain, Germany, Holland, Canada, etc etc
Unless of course climate change REALLY accelerates and makes Penang and the likes uninhabitable. Which is not impossible. Bangkok was borderline intolerable when I was there in April and they had record breaking temps and deadly wet bulb stuff going on
I wouldn't worry too much. People in your political circles are usually found complaining about how many people want to move to this country. As rainswept foggy archipelagos go, we seem to have quite the pull factor for now.
Idiot. I live in North London and I'm in the "creative sector". Exactly how many of my friends, or my "political circle", do you think are classic UKIPers and Gammonites?
Britain still has a pull factor of sorts. But our hefty tax rates are already pushing talented people away
I'd say the vast majority would be happy to see immigration of unthreatening highly skilled people who would pay a lot of tax and less happy to see immigration of scary poor people who will depress wages at the bottom end disappear into the criminal underworld, and will not doubt hold views about the shades of grey in between. I think almost any random individual's view of immigration is going to be rather more complex and nuanced than the population at large is given credit for.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it?
It won't raise any money particularly and certainly a lot less than it advocates claim. It will push the children of poor people out of the good state schools as people who can no longer afford private education ramp up prices of rents or mortgages in good state school catchement areas.
It will probably lower the per pupils spending on public sector education
I fail to see how that helps most people
What on earth does "it wont raise any money particularly" mean? Will it raise enough to pay for the NHS and fund a new space exploration project? No. Will it raise some money particularly? Yes, of course it does.
It will raise far less than a billion, the extra income will be more than swallowed up by the influx of students to the state education centre. I believe net it will be negative
If the effect of putting VAT on private school fees is negative, presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools to save the nation even more money?
You are making claims of me saying things I have never said. Opposing the change is not the same as saying we should subsidize them
You do the same thing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Where did I ever ask for private schools to be subsidized? this is what was said "presumably you and the others contesting this policy would favour giving subsidies to private schools" . You said it not me. It is putting words in my mouth just stop it and fuck off
I am, to be clear, NOT saying you said it. I am saying that the logic of your argument is that it would be a good thing to do.
I do not think that follows at all, subsidizing public schools would be taking money from other governement expenditure. I am merely saying I consider the vat on private schools is actually going to cost more than it raises due to private educated kids entering the public sector school system. That is far different than arguing we should take money from somewhere to pump into the private system. It is merely saying this policy won't raise money it will cost us.
If making private schools more expensive costs the country money because more kids enter the public sector, then it logically follows that making private schools cheaper should save the country money because fewer kids enter the public sector. The only question is where, as Cookie says, the sweet spot lies.
Well not necessarily, because where the sweet spot is will depend on several factors, some of which will be straight lines and some curved. My suspicion is indeed that the sweet spot is some way to the right of here - that there is the capacity to improve the lot of state schools by moving kids to the private sector. Indeed, we used to do this - the brightest state school children would be given scholarships to private schools paid for by the state. Though arguably they aren't the ones we should be getting out of mainstream education!
Sure. Where that sweet spot will be is complicated. I suspect that the sweet spot is further to the left, i.e. we should have VAT on private school fees. The analysis already posted supports that.
You raise a separate issue: is a policy that saves the country money, but increases inequality, acceptable? I can't see a manifesto pledge to subsidise public schools being very popular.
I think the analysis done in support of the policy is a bit suspect - but that's a separate argument, and I haven't done my own counter-research! So I won't go into that any further. Not least because your second point is more interesting:
If everyone is better off - but some are MUCH better off - then that absolutely should be acceptable. Depressingly, many humans would rather be worse off as long as those better off than them are much worse off.
Arguably, inequality has costs for all of us. It's interesting how some health outcomes are more related to health inequalities than to overall levels of wealth, for example.
It's interesting that threads on education do seem to stay on topic the longest.
Maybe that's a sign that everybody has a decided opinion on it?
Well, unlike (say) health, or defence, most people have spent a significant part of their lives in the system. Even if they didn’t learn much about how it’s run.
We probably all saw enough to realise that it's not well run.
We've mostly had some experience of 'health' too. Equally not well run.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Could. Mostly wouldn't. People have friends, family, property, gym memberships, their favourite restaurant, the raised beds in the garden that are just starting to grow some impressive courgettes. These things tie people to a place. Just upping and moving to another country is a fuckton of effort. I've done it twice, I know about these things.
And some people are far more international. They are living in a rented house. They have friends in multiple countries....
Yes, which is why I say "mostly" wouldn't. Most people don't move. Some do. I have. Of the people I grew up with, I know one other person who moved to and worked in another country. Language is a formidable barrier and English speakers are not particularly great at learning other languages, limiting opportunities to some extent.
I know a few people who have moved for work or for love or for other reasons, but I don't know anyone who has moved because of tax rates. But I'm only in the higher rate tax band: maybe I just don't mix with additional rate tax band people enough!
In high end office work, I've been astonished at the way many companies mandate English for meetings - especially in Europe. People apologise for speaking in German or Danish, if they slip when starting the meeting. In their own country.....
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
On the debate about moving abroad for high earners, I probably come into that category (make in the 150-200k range) and my wife and I are seriously considering a move to mainland Europe in the next couple of years, depending on where our careers go here (we have the advantage of not needing a visa for the EU). This isn't so much because of high taxes, I don't actually particularly mind paying high taxes, but a more general feeling that the UK just isn't working and is continuing to head downhill.
Particularly living in London (we like big cities), we're feeling that with a household income that's wildly above average there's really not that much of a lifestyle advantage. European friends of ours seem to be living better lives in surroundings where public services are still working on far lower incomes. Perhaps it's just grass is greener syndrome, we'll see.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Sure, notionally 80% FEC for much of what we do (NIHR and co) and lower than FEC reckonings for charities (without/with reduced overheads etc). Yet my department, with little teaching, is still solvent. That may be due to invisible subsidies from the university, e.g. not passing on the true cost of estates etc, of course.
On publishing, that's also covered, mostly by ring-fenced grant money. All our grants, pretty much, include specific budgets for open access publishing. There is some university subsidising of open access outwith that, but it's not a huge amount (again, in my area, at least). There have, of course, been university repositories for authors' accepted copies etc for longer.
Universities certainly have a better case than most private schools.
I would presume that your department is effectively being cross-subsidised by more teaching-active departments elsewhere in the university.
I believe the department itself is, on paper at least, self-funding. Maybe we do particularly well on the students we do have. A fair chunk is post-grad although not huge % overseas. Also some CPD income, which no doubt helps. But research is a very big part of overall income and budgets. Might have to re-study some old slides summarising...
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
The millionaires aren’t the ones who’ll be forced out of private education.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
Tax wealth not income
Go on, set out which wealth you tax, how often and at what rates.
Real property for starters
Four questions on real property tax: Do you tax agricultural land; what is the basis of taxation; what is the rate; do you tax occupation, ownership or both?
(Real property is already taxed of course, but with exemptions.)
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
The millionaires aren’t the ones who’ll be forced out of private education.
If you are paying private school fees even in a non boarding school thats probably 28k a year you can redirect to mortgage or rent to get your offspring into the catchement area of a good state school...more than most people earn a year
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
How can you ban private schools?
"Join our home education group. We have excellent local tutors who just happen to have worked at Eton for 15 years."
I know home education is frowned upon as it allows children to disappear from the "system", but it would be a major imposition to ban it as well.
Most of Europe seems to be standardising on the Leopard.
LEOPARD 2A7+/2A8 FOR THE ITALIAN ARMY! It’s all but confirmed now, the Undersecretary of Defense Isabella Rauti has officially declared that the purchase of the Leopard 2 tanks will be included in the forthcoming DPP. Purchase just needs to be approved by the parliament now. https://twitter.com/NichoConcu/status/1679152652503097345
And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.
How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.
That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
How can you ban private schools?
"Join our home education group. We have excellent local tutors who just happen to have worked at Eton for 15 years."
I know home education is frowned upon as it allows children to disappear from the "system", but it would be a major imposition to ban it as well.
There is a fair bit of Human Rights legislation involved that that point.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent
50k a year can be wealth or poverty depending on place and situation. For a single earner with spouse and several small children in SE/London preferring to live with 4 walls and a roof and without family wealth it's a struggle.
For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
How can you ban private schools?
"Join our home education group. We have excellent local tutors who just happen to have worked at Eton for 15 years."
I know home education is frowned upon as it allows children to disappear from the "system", but it would be a major imposition to ban it as well.
I’m not sure how we got from ‘removing charitable status’ to ‘banning’. Rhetorical sleight of hand, perhaps ?
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
That's the question. Will this plan abolish private schools or make it somewhat more expensive?
Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.
One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)
And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.
How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.
That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....
The majority of Chinese people live in China. Most people in this country are born in this country. Most people don't move. Some do.
All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.
And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
That's the question. Will this plan abolish private schools or make it somewhat more expensive?
Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.
One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)
Unpopular answer incoming
Yes we will always have failing schools. The simple reason is not the schools themselves. The reason is we have too many parents who do not see a point in education and pass the attitude onto their kids. Those kids are disruptive in lessons because they don't see the point, the parents encourage that view and kick up a fuss if teachers discipline those kids. They tend to end up congregated in schools because of exclusion etc.
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
It's not going to attract everyone, for the reasons you set out. It's certainly not going to attract me with a wife and three kids and a nice suburban house and ageing parents and an aversion to hot weather. But it will attract some. I daresay if I was single in my twenties I might have given it a go for a year for an adventure.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
That's the question. Will this plan abolish private schools or make it somewhat more expensive?
Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.
One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)
The worst 3 areas for average GCSE results, Burnley, Gosport and Norwich are all non selective
I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.
That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.
You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...
Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)
In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.
I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...
So that story doesn't wash.
Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.
Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.
Fair comment. My own view (FWIW) is that private education is an utter waste of money. That said, Labour's policy likely won't do anything to improve education overall.
I certainly didn't send my son private so really got no skin in the game. I also don't regret that. However I do think if private schools were abolished the net results would be worse education for the bottom 80% as rich parents find ways to shoehorn kids into the good stateschools at the expense of their kids
There are already complaints about rich parents transferring their kids to the 6th form at the local Free School - no fees, plus tutoring*, plus being able to claim state school priority in admissions.
Elbowing out the needy is the term used.
*Without private education, back to the really old days, when the posh were tutored. 3 Levels = 3 tutors. Cut the cost by sharing between a couple of parents (already happens). a few hours a week plus lots of set work....
Is VAT paid on tutoring?
Not at the moment. One question about this policy would be if and how that would change.
Does this mean vat will also be applied to university fees? I have to admit I would laugh myself silly if it did as an unintended consequence
I (academic) also don't really see the basis for universities' (kind of a) charity status. Afterall, most of what we do is education for fee and research for, generally, full economic cost (or a fixed % of that). If you remove it then of course fees go up for everyone, which given the way it is funded means direct increase in government liabilities and the costs of research would also increase, which is largely also ultimately - of course - goverment funded. So it would be a lot of shuffling around of money to no real effect, but I'd have no problem in principle.
There is an argument that most universities are running low cost education for local people - e.g. night schools at mine - and are also generally quite open with their facilities, given that the public can wander around campus and use most of our sports (plus many other) facilities at low cost. So probably a better argument for universities' status still, even if not a great one.
Nearly all research is funded at substantially below full economic cost.
More importantly, universities make their research findings (mostly) publicly available. That’s a big part of their public good.
Except that publishing houses are the gatekeepers for much research output and most do not give free access to research findings published in their journals.
Changing very significantly, albeit at the cost of the uni. See my post just before yours.
Yebbut because I am no longer a "senior academic" I cannot access even my own publications without paying through the nose to the likes of Elsevier
I was surprised to find out (after many years) that as a graduate of university X, I get free access. Would have been nice to have been told!
The price journals charge is outrageous for the work they actually do.
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
Leon's continued presence here in the UK is one of life's enduring mysteries. I reckon he's waiting to do a big flounce when Starmer gets in and raises his taxes to pay Muslim transsexual immigrants to do gain of function research on Coronaviruses in women's toilets in Rochdale.
Interesting comments from Wallace today. Whilst true if impolitic doesn't he know the basic rule that the fastest way to make a grateful person ungrateful is to tell them they should be grateful? And indeed applying to showing gratitude?
And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.
How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.
That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....
The majority of Chinese people live in China. Most people in this country are born in this country. Most people don't move. Some do.
All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.
And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.
Many offices around the world mandate English for work. The extent of this is astonishing.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
That's the question. Will this plan abolish private schools or make it somewhat more expensive?
Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.
One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)
The worst 3 areas for average GCSE results, Burnley, Gosport and Norwich are all non selective
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
Leon's continued presence here in the UK is one of life's enduring mysteries. I reckon he's waiting to do a big flounce when Starmer gets in and raises his taxes to pay Muslim transsexual immigrants to do gain of function research on Coronaviruses in women's toilets in Rochdale.
Leon adores London, if we can take him at his word. I think it would take a lot to shift him. Nevertheless, we should try.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent
50k a year can be wealth or poverty depending on place and situation. For a single earner with spouse and several small children in SE/London preferring to live with 4 walls and a roof and without family wealth it's a struggle.
For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.
Depending on when they bought, the pensioner couple might be living in an area that's expensive now but wasn't forty years ago. Romford is a strange mix of older WWC-made-good who couldn't afford to move here now and younger professionals renting or struggling to buy. Hence some of the political and social tensions you see as North East London shades into South West Essex.
But as long as the cost of housing is "whatever you can afford, plus some", I suspect nothing else matters for the cost of living. Tax cuts? Pay rises? They'll just feed into the market rate to rent or buy a home.
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
Leon's continued presence here in the UK is one of life's enduring mysteries. I reckon he's waiting to do a big flounce when Starmer gets in and raises his taxes to pay Muslim transsexual immigrants to do gain of function research on Coronaviruses in women's toilets in Rochdale.
Leon adores London, if we can take him at his word. I think it would take a lot to shift him. Nevertheless, we should try.
He's welcome to stay in London as long as he doesn't come south of the river.
And those MacNeil comments about population growth and independence - didn't he compare to the Faroes which are autonomous and not technically independent? And also don't many independent states have declining populations so why does he associate a decline in Scotland with lack of independence?
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent
50k a year can be wealth or poverty depending on place and situation. For a single earner with spouse and several small children in SE/London preferring to live with 4 walls and a roof and without family wealth it's a struggle.
For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.
Depending on when they bought, the pensioner couple might be living in an area that's expensive now but wasn't forty years ago. Romford is a strange mix of older WWC-made-good who couldn't afford to move here now and younger professionals renting or struggling to buy. Hence some of the political and social tensions you see as North East London shades into South West Essex.
But as long as the cost of housing is "whatever you can afford, plus some", I suspect nothing else matters for the cost of living. Tax cuts? Pay rises? They'll just feed into the market rate to rent or buy a home.
Epping too has become increasingly London professional and less WWC made good. Indeed now a majority of Epping District councillors are even Liberal Democrat. Plus it is getting a Waitrose (having lots of LD councillors, even if the area still has a Tory MP and a Waitrose the closest match to an upper middle class expensive area now)
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
Who's abolishing private schools?
Neil Kinnock proposed it in 1987.
He unforgettably defended it by saying, 'This wouldn't abolish the right of parents to buy private education. They'll just have to buy it abroad instead.'
Interesting comments from Wallace today. Whilst true if impolitic doesn't he know the basic rule that the fastest way to make a grateful person ungrateful is to tell them they should be grateful? And indeed applying to showing gratitude?
Worth pointing out that Beth Rigby to her credit (words I never thought I would say) did read out the whole comment exchange and it was not just a case of Wallace saying they were ungrateful. He was expressing concern that whilst the Governments in NATO are behind Ukraine, there are a lot of people on 'The Hill' (a phrase repeated a couple of times) who are saying that Ukraine is showing a lack of gratitude and that they neded to be careful bnot to alienate opinion. That said he did then take it too far by making the comment about traveling 11 hours to get to Kiev and be presented with a list of demands.
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
Leon's continued presence here in the UK is one of life's enduring mysteries. I reckon he's waiting to do a big flounce when Starmer gets in and raises his taxes to pay Muslim transsexual immigrants to do gain of function research on Coronaviruses in women's toilets in Rochdale.
Leon adores London, if we can take him at his word. I think it would take a lot to shift him. Nevertheless, we should try.
We could have a whip round and buy him a Digital Nomad Visa.
And your friends, and your kids' friends? Your mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?
It has possibly escaped your attention that I travel quite a bit
A fleet of taxpayer-funded cars was used to take senior SNP politicians home from Nicola Sturgeon’s leaving party.
Opposition parties claimed that use of the Scottish Government’s car service, to “ferry home” a dozen nationalists from a night out in honour of the departing First Minister, was “deeply inappropriate” and an abuse of public funds.
The news comes after it recently emerged that Ms Sturgeon also billed taxpayers for a business class flight and £500-a-night hotel as part of her ‘farewell tour’.
Records show that SNP ministers, including current First Minister Humza Yousaf and his deputy Shona Robison, used government drivers to collect them from the Ghillie Dhu in Edinburgh on the evening of March 23.
The pub, in central Edinburgh, was the venue for a leaving party for Ms Sturgeon, who just hours earlier had taken part in her final session of First Minister’s Questions, and her deputy John Swinney.
The exclusive celebrations were for around 100 loyalists to Ms Sturgeon, with the event described as being attended by the “SNP elite”.
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent
50k a year can be wealth or poverty depending on place and situation. For a single earner with spouse and several small children in SE/London preferring to live with 4 walls and a roof and without family wealth it's a struggle.
For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.
Depending on when they bought, the pensioner couple might be living in an area that's expensive now but wasn't forty years ago. Romford is a strange mix of older WWC-made-good who couldn't afford to move here now and younger professionals renting or struggling to buy. Hence some of the political and social tensions you see as North East London shades into South West Essex.
But as long as the cost of housing is "whatever you can afford, plus some", I suspect nothing else matters for the cost of living. Tax cuts? Pay rises? They'll just feed into the market rate to rent or buy a home.
What comes when the total supply of houses is 8 million or so less than the total demand for houses....
The fix and the only possible fix is we need to build a lot (and I mean, a LOT) of housing in all shapes and sizes...
I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.
Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.
No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos
That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.
I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.
Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..
Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.
So pick a couple and watch the reaction....
just did above
No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...
I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.
When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.
Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society
But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).
The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.
No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.
Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.
I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.
37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.
How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?
Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.
I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)
Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.
There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.
I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?
Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.
Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.
I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.
No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move
I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.
well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.
50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent
50k a year can be wealth or poverty depending on place and situation. For a single earner with spouse and several small children in SE/London preferring to live with 4 walls and a roof and without family wealth it's a struggle.
For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.
Depending on when they bought, the pensioner couple might be living in an area that's expensive now but wasn't forty years ago. Romford is a strange mix of older WWC-made-good who couldn't afford to move here now and younger professionals renting or struggling to buy. Hence some of the political and social tensions you see as North East London shades into South West Essex.
But as long as the cost of housing is "whatever you can afford, plus some", I suspect nothing else matters for the cost of living. Tax cuts? Pay rises? They'll just feed into the market rate to rent or buy a home.
Epping too has become increasingly London professional and less WWC made good. Indeed now a majority of Epping District councllors are even Liberal Democrat. Plus it is getting a Waitrose (having lots of LD councillors and a Waitrose the closest match to an upper middle class area now)
Plenty of professionals are themselves WWC made good or at least their children or grandchildren. Most of us are plebs if you go back a generation or two.
Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.
Serious question what good will come of it? …
If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.
It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!
Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
That's the question. Will this plan abolish private schools or make it somewhat more expensive?
Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.
One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)
The worst 3 areas for average GCSE results, Burnley, Gosport and Norwich are all non selective
Comments
No flag pole or rope has ever done anything to deserve such a foul punishment.
An individual school can have a comprehensive admissions policy by itself, but its intake depends also on the policies of the schools around it. Any comprehensive that is a plausible commute from a grammar school is unlikely to be fully comprehensive, because some of the top few percent of its intake will go to the grammar school instead.
It's a bit of a simplification to say that creating one grammar school inevitably creates four secondary moderns, but it helps explain why comprehensivisation was popular, why there's so little demand to create grammar schools in areas that don't have them and why the pressure in places like Kent is to make their selective schools less selective by adding more places to them.
Whereas with subjects about, say, refugees - very few of us have any particularly relevant first hand experience to draw upon. Just as valid a subject, but fewer insights.
Edit: had a quick look. More than 90%. And anything that isn't, we make it available through things like ResearchGate.
yes just checked you are right was a supertax
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/real-property.asp
On publishing, that's also covered, mostly by ring-fenced grant money. All our grants, pretty much, include specific budgets for open access publishing. There is some university subsidising of open access outwith that, but it's not a huge amount (again, in my area, at least). There have, of course, been university repositories for authors' accepted copies etc for longer.
Universities certainly have a better case than most private schools.
You raise a separate issue: is a policy that saves the country money, but increases inequality, acceptable? I can't see a manifesto pledge to subsidise public schools being very popular.
Incidentally, this is why capitalism is so good. It reduces the need for absolute precision in planning (you can go over, but the lending will start to ramp up your unit costs) and it reduces the need for slack in the system (you don't need a permanent local surplus to account for the locally unexpected). Lending and investment make everything more elastic. It really is a wonderful system.
And the Hovis ad…
Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.
Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones
So it is happening. Slowly but surely. People are moving to the sun
Long term this is a horrible threat to cold wintry countries like Britain, Germany, Holland, Canada, etc etc
Unless of course climate change REALLY accelerates and makes Penang and the likes uninhabitable. Which is not impossible. Bangkok was borderline intolerable when I was there in April and they had record breaking temps and deadly wet bulb stuff going on
Even if they didn’t learn much about how it’s run.
Another option would be to shift council tax or similar into the central Government pot and change the council tax revenue stream to x% of income tax from those in the area...
ETA: Actually, one book chapter that probably isn't easily accessible without buying the book or having an institutional account with Springer.
See https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HEPI-How-much-is-too-much-Report-100-FINAL.pdf for details.
If everyone is better off - but some are MUCH better off - then that absolutely should be acceptable. Depressingly, many humans would rather be worse off as long as those better off than them are much worse off.
Britain still has a pull factor of sorts. But our hefty tax rates are already pushing talented people away
It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under
We've mostly had some experience of 'health' too. Equally not well run.
Defence? What'd be your guess?
Wow!
At 114 hours out (< 5 days), GFS is predicting a temperature of 123°F (50.6°C) with widespread 120°F+ for the central valley of California. This is (was) agricultural land.
The heatwave that is going to happen next week in the Southern US will be historic.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1679120173528387585
No
Oh it's Bezos or Branston?
No
It's that New Zealander?
No
The French? Indians? Russians? Japanese?
No,No,No,No
The Chinese?
Close.
CSNA?
No
LandSpace????
Yes!
Fuck me...
(narrator. The British Space programme consists of a 747 that doesn't work, a Scottish spaceport that nobody uses, and that Robin Reliant from Top Gear)
Or you can stay in Britain in January and pay 45%?
If you don't think that ultimately this will affect our tax base then you're not thinking very hard. You don't need to be on £5 squillion a year to be enticed by 15% tax over 45% tax
Due to the subsidence of the sea mounts and the ocean floor on which they sit, they have survived the equivalent of 4000m of sea level change over several hundred million years. Just look at the ocean depth which surrounds them.
More recently, they and most other coral reefs also survived tens of metres of sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
The problem is really nothing to do with sea level rise, it is because the Maldives were built on to accommodate people, particularly tourists. The natural processes which built the islands in the first place and kept them just above the sea have been stopped.
How can a concrete runway adapt naturally? Any storm debris which would have built up the land is removed.
You have to earn $24k, have a clean criminal record, and buy health insurance. You can bring spouse and kids
The tax rate?
Oh that. yes, it's 0%. Yes, 0% on money earned outside Malaysia (ie all your income for most people)
How the fuck is this not going to attract people?
https://citizenremote.com/visas/malaysia/
Plus you get the FOOD in Penang
Particularly living in London (we like big cities), we're feeling that with a household income that's wildly above average there's really not that much of a lifestyle advantage. European friends of ours seem to be living better lives in surroundings where public services are still working on far lower incomes. Perhaps it's just grass is greener syndrome, we'll see.
I really dont get how you dont see this.
My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished
do they
a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling
or
b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway
I suspect a) is going to be the answer
(Real property is already taxed of course, but with exemptions.)
"Join our home education group. We have excellent local tutors who just happen to have worked at Eton for 15 years."
I know home education is frowned upon as it allows children to disappear from the "system", but it would be a major imposition to ban it as well.
LEOPARD 2A7+/2A8 FOR THE ITALIAN ARMY!
It’s all but confirmed now, the Undersecretary of Defense Isabella Rauti has officially declared that the purchase of the Leopard 2 tanks will be included in the forthcoming DPP. Purchase just needs to be approved by the parliament now.
https://twitter.com/NichoConcu/status/1679152652503097345
How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.
That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....
For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.
Rhetorical sleight of hand, perhaps ?
Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.
One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)
Most people don't move. Some do.
All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.
And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.
Yes we will always have failing schools. The simple reason is not the schools themselves. The reason is we have too many parents who do not see a point in education and pass the attitude onto their kids. Those kids are disruptive in lessons because they don't see the point, the parents encourage that view and kick up a fuss if teachers discipline those kids. They tend to end up congregated in schools because of exclusion etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11219349
The price journals charge is outrageous for the work they actually do.
Do you think that raising the cost of school fees for private schools will make them
a) more exclusive
b) less exclusive
This ex-teacher says: poor work, resubmit.
But as long as the cost of housing is "whatever you can afford, plus some", I suspect nothing else matters for the cost of living. Tax cuts? Pay rises? They'll just feed into the market rate to rent or buy a home.
Apologies if already addressed.
He unforgettably defended it by saying, 'This wouldn't abolish the right of parents to buy private education. They'll just have to buy it abroad instead.'
Opposition parties claimed that use of the Scottish Government’s car service, to “ferry home” a dozen nationalists from a night out in honour of the departing First Minister, was “deeply inappropriate” and an abuse of public funds.
The news comes after it recently emerged that Ms Sturgeon also billed taxpayers for a business class flight and £500-a-night hotel as part of her ‘farewell tour’.
Records show that SNP ministers, including current First Minister Humza Yousaf and his deputy Shona Robison, used government drivers to collect them from the Ghillie Dhu in Edinburgh on the evening of March 23.
The pub, in central Edinburgh, was the venue for a leaving party for Ms Sturgeon, who just hours earlier had taken part in her final session of First Minister’s Questions, and her deputy John Swinney.
The exclusive celebrations were for around 100 loyalists to Ms Sturgeon, with the event described as being attended by the “SNP elite”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/12/snp-politicians-taxpayer-funded-cars-sturgeon-leaving-party/
The fix and the only possible fix is we need to build a lot (and I mean, a LOT) of housing in all shapes and sizes...