Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[borcy]

hidetheelephants said:

Ronstein said:

I wonder if they've factored in the £83 million that the MOD spends on supporting private education for MOD personnel that the Labour government will have to pay VAT on??

A large chunk of that is circular money as the MoD runs boarding schools for military rugrats.

I thought that they'd all closed?

[EddieSteadyGo]

MaxFromage said:

Take it for what it is, and I think I've mentioned it before, but my left-leaning wife is very much embedded in this data as a consultant for a number of institutions both public and otherwise. Her view (and others in the field) does not align with that comment from the IFS. :Cough: Said consultants may be engaging with the 'parties' that matter.

Does your wife have a range estimate for what she thinks is the probable long term net gain/loss?

[markh1973]

Mr Penguin said:

MaxFromage said:

Take it for what it is, and I think I've mentioned it before, but my left-leaning wife is very much embedded in this data as a consultant for a number of institutions both public and otherwise. Her view (and others in the field) does not align with that comment from the IFS. :Cough: Said consultants may be engaging with the 'parties' that matter.

The IFS also assume that the VAT not spent by parents moving to the state system will be spent on other things so VAT will be spent elsewhere but a lot of it will be spent on foreign holidays (no UK VAT), put into savings/pensions/ISAs (no VAT) or simply even not working a second job or getting a less stressful job / working fewer hours (no VAT but also no income tax at higher rates).

https://listentotaxman.com/?year=2024&taxregio... - £70k salary brings in £18.8k in deductions + £8.4k in employers NI
https://listentotaxman.com/?year=2024&taxregio... - £60k salary brings in £14.6k in deductions + £7k in employers NI

That £10k salary drop for a less stressful job means £6k less to the employee but £5600 less to the taxman as well as not getting the VAT from the school or anything else. The £5600 goes up to £7600 if the employee earns above £100k.

Except that the business which was paying someone £70k a year will either pay someone else that £70k or pay some tax on the salary saved if the individual reduces their hours so the loss to the exchequer is unlikely to be the numbers you state.

[Ronstein]

Mr Penguin said:

Ronstein said:

I wonder if they've factored in the £83 million that the MOD spends on supporting private education for MOD personnel that the Labour government will have to pay VAT on??

It will pay VAT back to itself

I expressed myself badly (as usual!). Its 20% of £83 million that it won't collect from the taxpayer.

[S600BSB]

President Merkin said:

Wombat3 said:

Standard ad-hom stuff from you. What a pleasant fellow you are!

There is not a single insult anywhere in my post, I go out of my way to not do it, This is what I find so laughable about you guys. you lob them all day long & then accuse the other guy of doing it. Projection much? Certainly an obvious fragility. Anyway, I've said all I'm going to on this, if things carry on the way they're going then time's up for your hand wringing anyway.

Chaps, this is getting a bit boring. Turn PH off and go and do something else. It’s Friday!

[philv]

So the shadow chancellor has mentioned rentt caps.

Despite them not working and academics agreeing on this, they can't help themselves.

Is it another pledge to completely screw the rental sector up completely once and for all?

[Mr Penguin]

philv said:

So the shadow chancellor has mentioned rentt caps.

Despite them not working and academics agreeing on this, they can't help themselves.

Is it another pledge to completely screw the rental sector up completely once and for all?

It doesn't sound like she is in favour of them and she tries hard to come across as a very by-the-book academically informed economic expert (which she is) so she won't push for them. At most it will be to placate the many people in Labour who do want them.

[98elise]

philv said:

So the shadow chancellor has mentioned rentt caps.

Despite them not working and academics agreeing on this, they can't help themselves.

Is it another pledge to completely screw the rental sector up completely once and for all?

I think they are inevitable. They appeal to the electorate who in general will only see the positives. We're already pushing our rents to market levels because we don't want to be caught out by the sudden introduction of fixed % caps. In the past kept them below market to encourage long term tenants.

[philv]

98elise said:

philv said:

So the shadow chancellor has mentioned rentt caps.

Despite them not working and academics agreeing on this, they can't help themselves.

Is it another pledge to completely screw the rental sector up completely once and for all?

I think they are inevitable. They appeal to the electorate who in general will only see the positives. We're already pushing our rents to market levels because we don't want to be caught out by the sudden introduction of fixed % caps. In the past kept them below market to encourage long term tenants.

Yes i increased mine last year.
I didn't want to.
I may do the same again this year.

I worry that they might prevent rent rises for new owners after a sale.
If the rent is not at market level prior to a sale then the property could be worth less.

They truly are idiots.
Increase supply!
Or reduce demand.

[lauda]

philv said:

98elise said:

philv said:

So the shadow chancellor has mentioned rentt caps.

Despite them not working and academics agreeing on this, they can't help themselves.

Is it another pledge to completely screw the rental sector up completely once and for all?

I think they are inevitable. They appeal to the electorate who in general will only see the positives. We're already pushing our rents to market levels because we don't want to be caught out by the sudden introduction of fixed % caps. In the past kept them below market to encourage long term tenants.

Yes i increased mine last year.
I didn't want to.
I may do the same again this year.

I worry that they might prevent rent rises for new owners after a sale.
If the rent is not at market level prior to a sale then the property could be worth less.

They truly are idiots.
Increase supply!
Or reduce demand.

Surely if they increase supply or reduce demand your property is also worth less. Why is a reduction by one mechanism ok but the other not?

[NomduJour]

Mr Penguin said:

she tries hard to come across as a very by-the-book academically informed economic expert

The book which she plagiarised?

[MaxFromage]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Does your wife have a range estimate for what she thinks is the probable long term net gain/loss?

It's hard to say, but the issue is that it will really impact the small private schools where many of the kids have parents who are making serious 'sacrifices'. This could cause those schools to close or downgrade their services and overall this would result in a much greater impact than is being modelled.

Huge knock on pressure on grammar schools as well.

[CoolHands]

MaxFromage said:

It's hard to say, but the issue is that it will really impact the small private schools where many of the kids have parents who are making serious 'sacrifices'. This could cause those schools to close or downgrade their services and overall this would result in a much greater impact than is being modelled.

Huge knock on pressure on grammar schools as well.

Really? If the grammar school is full (which they are) it will make no difference. The poor parents will have little timmy to go to a non-selective school! The horror

[119]

CoolHands said:

MaxFromage said:

It's hard to say, but the issue is that it will really impact the small private schools where many of the kids have parents who are making serious 'sacrifices'. This could cause those schools to close or downgrade their services and overall this would result in a much greater impact than is being modelled.

Huge knock on pressure on grammar schools as well.

Really? If the grammar school is full (which they are) it will make no difference. The poor parents will have little timmy to go to a non-selective school! The horror

For a moment there i thought you had made an intelligent post.

[andy43]

MaxFromage said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Does your wife have a range estimate for what she thinks is the probable long term net gain/loss?

It's hard to say, but the issue is that it will really impact the small private schools where many of the kids have parents who are making serious 'sacrifices'. This could cause those schools to close or downgrade their services and overall this would result in a much greater impact than is being modelled.

Huge knock on pressure on grammar schools as well.

Exactly that. It’s probably easy to model the overall impact but if you’re a middling to half decent private school in ‘not the south east’ the impact of vat would be considerable to your fee payers. My kids fee paying school carpark was about 1/3 new £100k SUVs, 1/3 various newish lower budget stuff and 1/3 sub-5 grand st boxes. If only a small percentage of private schools like that closed the increase in pressure on the state sector in specific areas would be massive. There’s no logic to it. It’s purely a tickbox exercise for the leftish, same as rent control - doesn’t have to make economic sense, or any sense on any level, it just has to work as a soundbite.

[gruffalo]

MaxFromage said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Does your wife have a range estimate for what she thinks is the probable long term net gain/loss?

It's hard to say, but the issue is that it will really impact the small private schools where many of the kids have parents who are making serious 'sacrifices'. This could cause those schools to close or downgrade their services and overall this would result in a much greater impact than is being modelled.

Huge knock on pressure on grammar schools as well.

As well as the big issue that if the schools closed the tax raised will not meet expectations so the program it was going to fund won't be funded so taxes will have to be raised else where.

Net result is an increase in taxation, private schools decimated or even wiped out. and potentially the specialist schools, like I mentioned in my earlier posts, not turning out people specifically qualified in thing like the arts so our arts, as an example, get badly damaged reducing the tax take from that as well. I have no skin in the game on private education but this does seem to be a policy that is not thought through at all. ai can see no positive angle to it.

[CoolHands]

andy43 said:

If only a small percentage of private schools like that closed the increase in pressure on the state sector in specific areas would be massive.

That’s rubbish, the number of state schools in England is huge, current demographics of children is falling, and quite large variations year to year anyway.

Plus nearly every independent school has now closed / getting rid of teachers pension scheme in favour of crappy private pension saving them a bundle in staffing costs.

[MaxFromage]

CoolHands said:

That’s rubbish, the number of state schools in England is huge, current demographics of children is falling, and quite large variations year to year anyway.

Plus nearly every independent school has now closed / getting rid of teachers pension scheme in favour of crappy private pension saving them a bundle in staffing costs.

Apologies, but it's quite clear from your last post and this, that you're out of your depth and have no idea of the current pressures in the education sector. You do understand demographics are only a small part of the puzzle? Do you understand what's happening with recruitment in the sector? The average age of teachers etc etc.

Ask anyone who knows anything about it, and they'll tell you it's a monumentally stupid idea.

[EddieSteadyGo]

CoolHands said:

Really? If the grammar school is full (which they are) it will make no difference. The poor parents will have little timmy to go to a non-selective school! The horror

Just as likely is that "little Timmy" parent's will push out the other parent's children over time. They can do that because they can afford to buy the houses in the right catchments, and can use more tutoring to get better entrance exam scores.

[MC Bodge]

The next government is about far more than well-off people worrying about an increase in school fees (although I'm sure that the people of Ukraine and Gaza are wearig ribbons to show solidarity with your plight).