Private schools, times a changing?

[borcy]

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.

Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.

But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.

Cost to parents is one thing, and affects some hardworking class families who take extra jobs and lodgers to pay fees. Cost to the country is another. Labour's Rwanda Policy may raise nothing at all onbe a net cost. VAT may not raise enough to pay for all the envy. Equality in mediocrity matters.

PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...

I don't think it's envy based, no more than any other ideological position.

Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.

[turbobloke]

borcy said:

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.

Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.

But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.

Cost to parents is one thing, and affects some hardworking class families who take extra jobs and lodgers to pay fees. Cost to the country is another. Labour's Rwanda Policy may raise nothing at all onbe a net cost. VAT may not raise enough to pay for all the envy. Equality in mediocrity matters.

PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...

I don't think it's envy based, no more than any other ideological position.

Labour like their rump vote to think 'the rich man over there' (a tory) is to blame for bad things, so now and then they offer a token policy to 'stick it to the rich man' (tory toff, tory scum etc). The Labour rump won't actually be helped much by Labour, who being politicians will as usual help themselves and their millionaire ex PMs / donors, so the envy blame game helps to keep bulk rumpies on the voting leash. I appreciate you and others may still disagree.

borcy said:

Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.

Too true.

[borcy]

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.

Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.

But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.

Cost to parents is one thing, and affects some hardworking class families who take extra jobs and lodgers to pay fees. Cost to the country is another. Labour's Rwanda Policy may raise nothing at all onbe a net cost. VAT may not raise enough to pay for all the envy. Equality in mediocrity matters.

PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...

I don't think it's envy based, no more than any other ideological position.

Labour like their rump vote to think 'the rich man over there' (a tory) is to blame for bad things, so now and then they offer a token policy to 'stick it to the rich man' (tory toff, tory scum etc). The Labour rump won't actually be helped much by Labour, who being politicians will as usual help themselves and their millionaire ex PMs / donors, so the envy blame game helps to keep bulk rumpies on the voting leash. I appreciate you and others may still disagree.

borcy said:

Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.

Too true.

Although it's a bit off topic, yes i think it's a bit one dimensional to say it's envy no more than you could say every/rump voter of the Conservative party is a gorden gecko wannabe. I think both views show a lack of imagination. That's not meant to be clever or offensive, it shows how binary these things can become.

Voters are often a blend of parties views, parties themselves are broad churches.

[turbobloke]

borcy said:

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.

Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.

But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.

Cost to parents is one thing, and affects some hardworking class families who take extra jobs and lodgers to pay fees. Cost to the country is another. Labour's Rwanda Policy may raise nothing at all onbe a net cost. VAT may not raise enough to pay for all the envy. Equality in mediocrity matters.

PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...

I don't think it's envy based, no more than any other ideological position.

Labour like their rump vote to think 'the rich man over there' (a tory) is to blame for bad things, so now and then they offer a token policy to 'stick it to the rich man' (tory toff, tory scum etc). The Labour rump won't actually be helped much by Labour, who being politicians will as usual help themselves and their millionaire ex PMs / donors, so the envy blame game helps to keep bulk rumpies on the voting leash. I appreciate you and others may still disagree.

borcy said:

Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.

Too true.

Although it's a bit off topic, yes i think it's a bit one dimensional to say it's envy no more than you could say every/rump voter of the Conservative party is a gorden gecko wannabe. I think both views show a lack of imagination. That's not meant to be clever or offensive, it shows how binary these things can become.

Voters are often a blend of parties views, parties themselves are broad churches.

Indeed, it's nuanced, though there's plenty of evidence that Labour play the toff envy card on their rump as much as the Tories may well be aiming stuff at geckos...though there aren't many Tory geckos compared to Labour rumpies so it's not that viable as a vote winner.

It has backfired on Labour before and it may yet do so with this VAT ruse.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/24/c...

[borcy]

turbobloke said:

Indeed, it's nuanced, though there's plenty of evidence that Labour play the toff envy card on their rump as much as the Tories may well be aiming stuff at geckos...though there aren't many Tory geckos compared to Labour rumpies so it's not that viable as a vote winner.

It has backfired on Labour before and it may yet do so with this VAT ruse.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/24/c...

I suppose that's a matter of perception. But each to their own.


It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.

[turbobloke]

borcy said:

I suppose that's a matter of perception. But each to their own.

It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.

There's a decent body of opinion that it won't be priority number one, then again it's low hanging fruit and an item to tick off the list.

[borcy]

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

I suppose that's a matter of perception. But each to their own.

It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.

There's a decent body of opinion that it won't be priority number one, then again it's low hanging fruit and an item to tick off the list.

I think that's about right.

I think sks will make a bit of noise about it, form a commission, get some white papers drawn up, have a consultation and then kick into the long grass.

[Louis Balfour]

borcy said:

turbobloke said:

borcy said:

I suppose that's a matter of perception. But each to their own.

It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.

There's a decent body of opinion that it won't be priority number one, then again it's low hanging fruit and an item to tick off the list.

I think that's about right.

I think sks will make a bit of noise about it, form a commission, get some white papers drawn up, have a consultation and then kick into the long grass.

If I were independent schools I would be looking closely at a legal challenge.

I believe there is a presumption that governments may tax as they see fit. However, independent schools educate, I am certain, a very high percentage of the children of senior lawyers in the UK. If I were such a lawyer and my children’s school was about to be be damaged by this I would happily offer some pro bono assistance.

[borcy]

Louis Balfour said:

If I were independent schools I would be looking closely at a legal challenge.

I believe there is a presumption that governments may tax as they see fit. However, independent schools educate, I am certain, a very high percentage of the children of senior lawyers in the UK. If I were such a lawyer and my children’s school was about to be be damaged by this I would happily offer some pro bono assistance.

On what grounds?
Mind you that's never bothered some people before.

[NDA]

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

If 30% of private places are lost because of closure or parents being unable to pay the increase, then the cost to the state sector is forecast to be around £1.3bn annually. This doesn't include the cost of building new state schools to cover the pressure on more applications.

It doesn't hit me at all as it happens. Fortunately mine are adults now and I won't get hit by this punitive envy tax.

[Louis Balfour]

borcy said:

Louis Balfour said:

If I were independent schools I would be looking closely at a legal challenge.

I believe there is a presumption that governments may tax as they see fit. However, independent schools educate, I am certain, a very high percentage of the children of senior lawyers in the UK. If I were such a lawyer and my children’s school was about to be be damaged by this I would happily offer some pro bono assistance.

On what grounds?
Mind you that's never bothered some people before.

I don’t know, I am not a top lawyer. But I won’t be surprised if there is an argument to be made one way or another. Whether it will be successful is a different matter. My point though is that the stakeholders here are a bit more punchy than those in some other taxation arguments.

[borcy]

Louis Balfour said:

I don’t know, I am not a top lawyer. But I won’t be surprised if there is an argument to be made one way or another. Whether it will be successful is a different matter. My point though is that the stakeholders here are a bit more punchy than those in some other taxation arguments.

Quite possible, there's always people ready to throw money at lawyers.

'My client insists..'

Those mortgages don't pay themselves.

[Wombat3]

NDA said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

If 30% of private places are lost because of closure or parents being unable to pay the increase, then the cost to the state sector is forecast to be around £1.3bn annually. This doesn't include the cost of building new state schools to cover the pressure on more applications.

It doesn't hit me at all as it happens. Fortunately mine are adults now and I won't get hit by this punitive envy tax.

Me either but I think the point that is being widely missed is that the threat of this will already be influencing decisions as to whether some kids even start in the private sector. Those that decide not to risk it are unlikely to reverse those decisions.

Same applies for kids that are due to transition from nursery to primary, primary-secondary and secondary to 6th form this September.

As far as the private schools are concerned it's about where the tipping points are that cause them to be non-viable.

Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 5th May 17:13

[C4ME]

NDA said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

If 30% of private places are lost because of closure or parents being unable to pay the increase, then the cost to the state sector is forecast to be around £1.3bn annually. This doesn't include the cost of building new state schools to cover the pressure on more applications.

It doesn't hit me at all as it happens. Fortunately mine are adults now and I won't get hit by this punitive envy tax.

The entire private sector is just under 6% of students. At 30% drop then you are talking less than a 2% increase in state numbers. That is before you take into account the DfE forecast of the drop in student numbers over the rest of this decade.

The UK government annual budget is 1,200 billion so 1.3 billion is very small in the scheme of things. Hence why, although this might hurt some directly, it is not valid to push the argument that it will cause a significant cost to the country.

Finally, a drop of 30% is not going to happen.

[Wombat3]

C4ME said:

NDA said:

C4ME said:

I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.

Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.

If 30% of private places are lost because of closure or parents being unable to pay the increase, then the cost to the state sector is forecast to be around £1.3bn annually. This doesn't include the cost of building new state schools to cover the pressure on more applications.

It doesn't hit me at all as it happens. Fortunately mine are adults now and I won't get hit by this punitive envy tax.

The entire private sector is just under 6% of students. At 30% drop then you are talking less than a 2% increase in state numbers. That is before you take into account the DfE forecast of the drop in student numbers over the rest of this decade.

The UK government annual budget is 1,200 billion so 1.3 billion is very small in the scheme of things. Hence why, although this might hurt some directly, it is not valid to push the argument that it will cause a significant cost to the country.

Finally, a drop of 30% is not going to happen.

That's if you assume the effects are linear. They will not be when you start looking at individual schools and where the tipping points are

( and I would think 30% is more than likely)

[Louis Balfour]

borcy said:

Quite possible, there's always people ready to throw money at lawyers.

'My client insists..'

Those mortgages don't pay themselves.

As I said, some lawyers may do it pro bono. I.e. without charge.

[ooid]

I think the best action here all effected parents can start shorting the listed companies from Labours main donor list...

[cheesejunkie]

TUS373 said:

Has he gone?

Never forever but don’t worry no interest in picking a fight right now .

I do think wait and see what the policy is before complaining but I can be like a bull to a red rag when I read some’s indignation at what I think is a sensible policy. Never mind , I’m not here to pick a fight this time.

For what it’s worth I have no problem with the posts around advising on minimising the costs and providing financial advice. I’ll bite my tongue on the rest of my views.

[Notreallymeeither]

My daughters (14 and 12) are coming up to the important years (GCSEs next year for the elder one) so unless something really bad happens to my earning potential there is no way I will be changing their school. This will come at a cost to me (fees are £5k a term each so £30k a year - meaning £6k VAT potentially).

That £500 a month is basically any discretionary spend I have - so the local economy and other areas I spend that discretionary spend on will not benefit by this amount.

It will instead go in to central coffers for use in whatever fantastic way the government decides (which is great, as governments of both colour have been exceptional in how they invest taxpayer money…….)

I am sure sad violins will be playing loudly for me - but I won’t be getting a new bathroom done or going to the local pub or buying any new items in town or getting Indian takeaways etc. Whilst one person won’t have much impact, multiply that impact by however many parents will be in a similar squeezed position (most of them I suspect) and you can see that spending in to the local economy by the slightly higher earners is going to take a nosedive.

Edited by Notreallymeeither on Monday 6th May 13:34

Edited by Notreallymeeither on Monday 6th May 13:36

[cheesejunkie]

Notreallymeeither said:

My daughters (14 and 12) are coming up to the important years (GCSEs next year for the elder one) so unless something really bad happens to my earning potential there is no way I will be changing their school. This will come at a cost to me (fees are £5k a term each so £30k a year - meaning £6k VAT potentially).

That £500 a month is basically any discretionary spend I have - so the local economy and other areas I spend that discretionary spend on will not benefit by this amount.

It will instead go in to central coffers for use in whatever fantastic way the government decides (which is great, as governments of both colour have been exceptional in how they invest taxpayer money…….)

I am sure sad violins will be playing loudly for me - but I won’t be getting a new bathroom done or going to the local pub or buying any new items in town or getting Indian takeaways etc. Whilst one person won’t have much impact, multiply that impact by however many parents will be in a similar squeezed position (most of them I suspect) and you can see that spending in to the local economy by the slightly higher earners is going to take a nosedive.

Edited by Notreallymeeither on Monday 6th May 13:34

Edited by Notreallymeeither on Monday 6th May 13:36

The pro trickle down argument.