Starmer is in tune with the nation – politicalbetting.com

geoffw said:

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

bondegezou said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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.

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Stocky said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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.

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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.

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

bondegezou said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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.

Cicero said:

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.

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

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?

Everyone has (hopefully) been educated, and most of us have children or grandchildren or nephews/nieces.

Now, cricket ...

Cookie said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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!

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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.

geoffw said:

Carnyx said:

geoffw said:

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

bondegezou said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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.

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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?

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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?

bondegezou said:

geoffw said:

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

bondegezou said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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.

Selebian said:

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

bondegezou said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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.

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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.

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

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.

Malmesbury said:

Space news

First Methlox rocket to orbit

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1678941562590429185?s=46&t=BXfRXqZ4RcCOdvlSgUjZSg

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

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."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/preparing-for-rising-seas-in-the-maldives

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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

Omnium said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

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.

Defence? What'd be your guess?

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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!

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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.

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

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

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?

geoffw said:

Carnyx said:

geoffw said:

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

bondegezou said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

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

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

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

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.

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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.

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

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?

Farooq said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

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

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.

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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)

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I posted this yesterday, but although it got some pushback I didn't really see any compelling argument against it.

It is supported by various precedents, notably the disendowment of the Church of Ireland (1869) and the Church in Wales (1920) when it was held the money they had raised should go to the nation rather than a private organisation. And it is worth remembering at this point that 'public' schools were so called because they were meant to be open to the public.

El_Capitano said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Paul Johnson
@PJTheEconomist
·
3h
Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.

https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1678687484992004096

Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?

Short answer: yes.

Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.

If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.

I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.

I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.

And look at the damage that did to those churches. The Church in Wales just a shadow of its former self for example. Indeed more Welsh are Roman Catholic or Methodist now than Anglican and in Ireland more Catholic or Presbyterian than Anglican too

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

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)