So it's class war then...
Discussion
Bluebarge said:
Would it improve social mobility or ths state system? possibly; but the real point is - why are commercial enterprises who benefit a wealthy few treated as charities?
Some independent schools are commercial enterprises (and are taxed as such), and some are not. It's very easy to mentally categorise independent schools exclusively into the mould of Eton, but in reality there are many more which are very "normal" and barely make ends meet. The local independent prep school I sent my children to had less good facilities than the local state schools and the teachers were paid pretty much the same as the state teachers. The main school building was an old house bequeathed in trust about 80 years ago by a spinster to the local community. Parents are happy to pay the fees and teachers are happy to teach there because of the spirit within the school, smaller class sizes and academic results. Any changes to the financial status of the school and fees would have to go up (pricing some parents out of this as an option) and an increased burden would fall on the local State schools. A lot of independent schools close with each recession, because they walk a fine line financially.The State gets a very good deal from independent schools - only the simple minded look at just one element of the balance. There's around 500,000 children in independent education in the UK and at £90Bn the State spends about £9000 on each of the ~10,000,000 children in the State system. On those numbers the independent sector saves the State from around £4.5Bn of additional spend each year. If the State currently loses around £20Mn pounds (Ed's figures are £100Mn over the lifetime of his hypothetical next government) a year in this "subsidy", in order to make a saving of £4.5Bn (i.e. x225 the return) then that seems like a pretty good investment to me.
Why isn't Labour concentrating on the real tax dodgers in the system - the corporations like Google, Facebook, Starbucks, Amazon etc who pay virtually no tax on profits generated from the UK? The rewards are much bigger than going after the perceived "rich"? Is it because Labour doesn't think that "recovering corporation tax from multinational organisations who leverage boundaries to shift artifical costs and reduce local profit" isn't as much of a vote-winning catcy soundbite for as "we'll tax the rich"?
edh said:
Mind you, if all the fee paying schools lost their pupils, we'd have lots of lovely buildings to turn into state schools, and lots teachers to staff them.. 
No you wouldn't, because the State doesn't own them (the buildings). You would have lots of brownfield sites for housing developments, however. I'll let you tell all the locals that their house values have now slumped by around 30% because they're no longer in the catchment area for a good school...You would then have the ultra-elite schools left servicing the ultra-rich. They might be paying business rates and corporation tax, and fees would go up by 30%, and congratulations, your policies have now burdened the State with providing 2500 new schools at what cost to the national finances?
edh said:
Typical PH nonsense...
It's either "Envy" (if you're a poor left winger) or "Hypocrisy" (if you're a rich left winger). I'm not a fan of Tristram Hunt, but I doubt he had much choice about where he went to school.
Mind you, if all the fee paying schools lost their pupils, we'd have lots of lovely buildings to turn into state schools, and lots teachers to staff them..
I expect you are correct - he wouldn't have chosen his school. But that doesn't answer the point - the point he made - about his university choice, when other potential students were 'blocked' by the Hon Tristram taking his Cambridge place from his elite secondary school. And now he's joined a whole bunch of priviledged people in the shadow cabinet! Does he not do irony?It's either "Envy" (if you're a poor left winger) or "Hypocrisy" (if you're a rich left winger). I'm not a fan of Tristram Hunt, but I doubt he had much choice about where he went to school.
Mind you, if all the fee paying schools lost their pupils, we'd have lots of lovely buildings to turn into state schools, and lots teachers to staff them..
And you really should see more independent schools - the buildings at some of them are dire. Doesn't stop the teachers teaching, though.
turbobloke said:
edh said:
Typical PH nonsense...
You're on PH.turbobloke said:
edh said:
It's either "Envy" (if you're a poor left winger) or "Hypocrisy" (if you're a rich left winger).
You said it. PhilboSE said:
edh said:
Mind you, if all the fee paying schools lost their pupils, we'd have lots of lovely buildings to turn into state schools, and lots teachers to staff them..
No you wouldn't, because the State doesn't own them (the buildings). You would have lots of brownfield sites for housing developments, however. I'll let you tell all the locals that their house values have now slumped by around 30% because they're no longer in the catchment area for a good school...You would then have the ultra-elite schools left servicing the ultra-rich. They might be paying business rates and corporation tax, and fees would go up by 30%, and congratulations, your policies have now burdened the State with providing 2500 new schools at what cost to the national finances?
Finland appears to have a good model. Somehow they make do without fee paying schools.
edh said:
PhilboSE said:
edh said:
Mind you, if all the fee paying schools lost their pupils, we'd have lots of lovely buildings to turn into state schools, and lots teachers to staff them..
No you wouldn't, because the State doesn't own them (the buildings). You would have lots of brownfield sites for housing developments, however. I'll let you tell all the locals that their house values have now slumped by around 30% because they're no longer in the catchment area for a good school...You would then have the ultra-elite schools left servicing the ultra-rich. They might be paying business rates and corporation tax, and fees would go up by 30%, and congratulations, your policies have now burdened the State with providing 2500 new schools at what cost to the national finances?
Finland appears to have a good model. Somehow they make do without fee paying schools.
ETA - Or hang on are you proposing that there is an actual ban on private education?
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 25th November 12:10
I think these very same private schools have already done enough by themselves to put their fees out of range of most relatively successful parents. They've tripled fees in just 20 years. So it's a bit hypocritical of the schools, and people on here, to moan about what Labour may or may not do in the next few years.
The simple fact is that you have to be seriously wealthy now to afford to put children through a private education. Maybe if you're a middle earner you could afford 1 child to get educated this way, but forget 2 or 3 kids.
The simple fact is that you have to be seriously wealthy now to afford to put children through a private education. Maybe if you're a middle earner you could afford 1 child to get educated this way, but forget 2 or 3 kids.
edh said:
I'm sure planning controls could restrict any change of use...after all a school is no use to housebuilders if all they can do with it is use it to teach kids. and you know what, all the locals now have access to good schools..not just the well off.
Local independent secondary school near me, in an affluent suburb...closed in the 2008 recession. Now it's just another housing estate. When one of Labour's last policies was to force councils to build new homes on the Green Belt around London, I doubt that old school sites will get any protection.We have Sky News on while we're getting ready in the mornings. They have the usual reports on how some focus group has published a report about something and there is political commentary, 'expert' in the Westminster Studio, 10 minute discussion allocated etc..
My Indian wife, brought up in Bombay, routinely raises an eyebrow and remarks, 'Really? Is this all they have to worry about?'.
My Indian wife, brought up in Bombay, routinely raises an eyebrow and remarks, 'Really? Is this all they have to worry about?'.
Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
FredClogs said:
Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
But then the same thing should apply to other organisation mascarading as charities which often provide little benefit to the wider community and benefit a niche group.http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
But then the same thing should apply to other organisation mascarading as charities which often provide little benefit to the wider community and benefit a niche group.http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
PhilboSE said:
Why isn't Labour concentrating on the real tax dodgers in the system - the corporations like Google, Facebook, Starbucks, Amazon etc who pay virtually no tax on profits generated from the UK? The rewards are much bigger than going after the perceived "rich"? Is it because Labour doesn't think that "recovering corporation tax from multinational organisations who leverage boundaries to shift artifical costs and reduce local profit" isn't as much of a vote-winning catcy soundbite for as "we'll tax the rich"?
Because they can't / its too difficult. International treaties cover international tax. Those companies don't make profit in this country, and the current tax law works on local profit.So they either need to completely revamp the tax system (too complicated) or get new international agreement (too slow as too many vested interests).
Hence, whichever party (parties) win next May, taxes must go up and they will be hitting easy targets. Easy targets that don't hit their core votes... even better.
My son is educated privately and attends a middle of the range independent school. Nothing special - they don't have a swimming pool / sports complex / big music faculty there, which is a damn sight less than many state schools. Last year, the fees were £13,200. On top of that, there was an additional £3,000 of other stuff (uniform, trips, lunch etc, etc). In order to afford just that, my wife and I had to earn about £26k gross between us. That's on top of the mortgage, bills etc, etc. We, along with the vast majority of other parents at his school, forego holidays, meals out, new cars to afford it as we view it as an unfortunate necessity due to the state schools in our area being absolutely atrocious (2 out of 3 primary and 3 out of 5 secondary schools in the local area are currently in OFSTED "special measures").
I can absolutely guarantee that if he had siblings, if one of us lost our job, or if fees went up 20 - 25%, he wouldn't be educated privately and would suffer significantly as a direct consequence.
Anecdotally, Most of the teachers drive Corsa's / Focus' / Polo's. Most of the parents drive Passat's / 3 Series BMW's / smaller Audi's. All generally 5 - 7 years old (mine included) Of course, there are a few who have big 4x4's but these are in the vast minority.
The overwhelming majority of parents at our son's school are not high earners, but chose to pay for education because the state alternatives simply don't exist in our area. If the state system was able to offer a viable alternative in the area, I am sure that 50 - 60% of the kids would be sent there immediately.
Long story short, if Labour wish to tax the independent system, they need to be careful of what they wish for. The state system, in some areas, is clearly failing and an influx of an extra 200 - 300k students would cripple it.
I can absolutely guarantee that if he had siblings, if one of us lost our job, or if fees went up 20 - 25%, he wouldn't be educated privately and would suffer significantly as a direct consequence.
Anecdotally, Most of the teachers drive Corsa's / Focus' / Polo's. Most of the parents drive Passat's / 3 Series BMW's / smaller Audi's. All generally 5 - 7 years old (mine included) Of course, there are a few who have big 4x4's but these are in the vast minority.
The overwhelming majority of parents at our son's school are not high earners, but chose to pay for education because the state alternatives simply don't exist in our area. If the state system was able to offer a viable alternative in the area, I am sure that 50 - 60% of the kids would be sent there immediately.
Long story short, if Labour wish to tax the independent system, they need to be careful of what they wish for. The state system, in some areas, is clearly failing and an influx of an extra 200 - 300k students would cripple it.
For the record, I was state educated and insisted my son was state educated until the end of his first year at primary school, where it became abundantly clear that he hadn't been taught a single thing all year. Upon meeting the headmaster to tell him we were removing him from the village school, there was no resistance, no fight, no plan to change, nothing other than simple resignation. I chaired the PTA and my wife sat on the board of governors at the time, so he lost a lot more than a student.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff