So it's class war then...
Discussion
So Labour now want to apply higher levels of business rates to independent schools, calling this a "subsidy". Conveniently forgetting that anyone sending a child to an independent school relieves the State of the burden of providing an education for their child, so that it's a massive subsidy in the opposite direction.
All Labour can do, it seems, is to use the politics of envy to declare that they are going to tax the "rich" more. Nothing about what they are going to do with the revenues, just that they're going to tax the rich more. The language used is designed to appeal to the simple minded:
- "mansion tax" : most affected houses will be homes in London & SE owned by aspirational middle class, not "mansions"
- "zero / zero culture" : the "rich" pay, by far, the largest percentage of income as tax and the largest absolute amounts of tax, not "zero"
- "remove public school subsidy" : you mean the independent schools that deliver £Bns in savings to the State?
Why does the media parrot out these trite phrases issued by Labour, without challenging them on even the slightest level? The minute Ed opened his mouth about "zero / zero" Britain, the media should have asked him to point exactly who the "zero" rate taxpayers are and how they do it?
All Labour can do, it seems, is to use the politics of envy to declare that they are going to tax the "rich" more. Nothing about what they are going to do with the revenues, just that they're going to tax the rich more. The language used is designed to appeal to the simple minded:
- "mansion tax" : most affected houses will be homes in London & SE owned by aspirational middle class, not "mansions"
- "zero / zero culture" : the "rich" pay, by far, the largest percentage of income as tax and the largest absolute amounts of tax, not "zero"
- "remove public school subsidy" : you mean the independent schools that deliver £Bns in savings to the State?
Why does the media parrot out these trite phrases issued by Labour, without challenging them on even the slightest level? The minute Ed opened his mouth about "zero / zero" Britain, the media should have asked him to point exactly who the "zero" rate taxpayers are and how they do it?
When you have people defending spiteful ignorant lefties like this ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jack-monr...
as-mistyeyed-rhetoric-to-legitimise-nhs-privatisation-9879063.html
then it's probably quite easy to convince them that 'The Man' is responsible for all their woes and deserves to be taxed!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jack-monr...
as-mistyeyed-rhetoric-to-legitimise-nhs-privatisation-9879063.html
then it's probably quite easy to convince them that 'The Man' is responsible for all their woes and deserves to be taxed!
TBF, it's not been clear for a long time why private schools should be taxed as charities when many are actually very wealthy and profitable enterprises whose fees are unaffordable for all except a very few. If they offered more scholarships they might have some justification for special treatment, but the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.
Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
I have just been discussing this very story with my business partner across our desks.
If they actually scrapped that relief but in turn introduced tax relief on fees then I am not sure anyone would have much of an issue with it.
Of course that won't happen and it is yet more eny driven soundbite politics designed to appeal to an ever increasingly large voting demographic that is seen as their ticket to power, who of course they both created more of during their years in office and seek to perpetuate and whip into a frenzy pre election to get back into power.
The really sad thing is it might just work!
If they actually scrapped that relief but in turn introduced tax relief on fees then I am not sure anyone would have much of an issue with it.
Of course that won't happen and it is yet more eny driven soundbite politics designed to appeal to an ever increasingly large voting demographic that is seen as their ticket to power, who of course they both created more of during their years in office and seek to perpetuate and whip into a frenzy pre election to get back into power.
The really sad thing is it might just work!
Unfortunately like the rest of the main parties, Labour spend millions on focus groups ran mostly by morons who believe these are the issues people really care about.
Given the lack of any real world experience the current crop of politicians have i doubt this will improve any time soon.
Given the lack of any real world experience the current crop of politicians have i doubt this will improve any time soon.
Labour, envy taxes, stupidity taxes, live on credit to subsidise apathetic voting jobsworths or dossers. A shadow of what they used to represent.
Liberal Democrats, be as illiberal as possible to everyone. They used to get my vote until they just targeted everyone for their liberal lifestyle choices in the late 90's.
Conservatives, lies and lies to satisfy idiots, with a hint of crony capitalism seeping into what used to be my default vote for UK government.
They're all idiots now. You're just voting for one and the same thing. Self serving people, who perhaps once were idealists but have succumbed to a singular goal of climbing the greasy pole of party political prestige and position, at the cost of serving their constituents.
It's no wonder UKIP fare so well. Even if they turn out s
t, it'll be no worse than it is with the current bunch in government.
Liberal Democrats, be as illiberal as possible to everyone. They used to get my vote until they just targeted everyone for their liberal lifestyle choices in the late 90's.
Conservatives, lies and lies to satisfy idiots, with a hint of crony capitalism seeping into what used to be my default vote for UK government.
They're all idiots now. You're just voting for one and the same thing. Self serving people, who perhaps once were idealists but have succumbed to a singular goal of climbing the greasy pole of party political prestige and position, at the cost of serving their constituents.
It's no wonder UKIP fare so well. Even if they turn out s
t, it'll be no worse than it is with the current bunch in government.I heard the Hon Dr Tristram Hunt on the radio this am...it was possible to deduce from his broad brush approach that the independent sector could just about sort out state schools with a little co-operation. Sharing of pitches. Lending a teacher now and again.
Naturally the interviewer didn't ask Tris what it was about his own priviledged education that he thought was remiss in it's attitude to the state sector. Presumably he has a view on this.
His time at Cambridge must have been properly dilemma inducing, getting there from public school when so many equally (if not more) deserving candidates from the state sector had to go and make do elsewhere. Enough to drive him to join the footlights as a means of forgetting his burden.
Naturally the interviewer didn't ask Tris what it was about his own priviledged education that he thought was remiss in it's attitude to the state sector. Presumably he has a view on this.
His time at Cambridge must have been properly dilemma inducing, getting there from public school when so many equally (if not more) deserving candidates from the state sector had to go and make do elsewhere. Enough to drive him to join the footlights as a means of forgetting his burden.
Bluebarge said:
TBF, it's not been clear for a long time why private schools should be taxed as charities when many are actually very wealthy and profitable enterprises whose fees are unaffordable for all except a very few. If they offered more scholarships they might have some justification for special treatment, but the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.
Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
Oh the irony... Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
heppers75 said:
Oh the irony...
So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
So should HMG subsidise Porsches so the bus network is not overwhelmed? or BUPA to ease the strain on the NHS?So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
TBFrank, your Armageddon scenario would simply not happen - yes some kids and teachers would move to the state system (which is not generally overburdened)but most wouldn't, and there is plenty of scope for cost-cutting at private schools, as a glance at the teachers' car park would tell you.
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?
heppers75 said:
Bluebarge said:
TBF, it's not been clear for a long time why private schools should be taxed as charities when many are actually very wealthy and profitable enterprises whose fees are unaffordable for all except a very few. If they offered more scholarships they might have some justification for special treatment, but the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.
Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
Oh the irony... Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
heppers75 said:
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
There are approximately 2500 independent schools educating just over 500,000 pupils. About 6% of children are educated in fee paying schools, it may be slightly different as of 25/11/14 given the recession/recovery playing with numbers. Putting a slice of those back in the State system would cause havoc, there are too few Primary school places as it is, and the demographic bulge is about to move into the Secondary phase. As things stand we already need 1 million more State school places by 2020. WHy not add to the problems we already have, it makes total sense So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
93 per cent of independent schools are already sharing facilities with local state schools and community groups and 32 are sponsoring government-funded academies so this is aimed at 7% if the indies.
Populist, envyist, non-thought-through billhooks. Typical Labour.
Bluebarge said:
heppers75 said:
Oh the irony...
So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
So should HMG subsidise Porsches so the bus network is not overwhelmed? or BUPA to ease the strain on the NHS?So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
TBFrank, your Armageddon scenario would simply not happen - yes some kids and teachers would move to the state system (which is not generally overburdened)but most wouldn't, and there is plenty of scope for cost-cutting at private schools, as a glance at the teachers' car park would tell you.
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?
It is not an armageddon scenario at all, just a practical assessment of the negative side effects of making a decision. Which unfortunately those that subscribe to such envy driven positions often neither want nor believe is real. Like it as not there is a negative impact to the decision and an offset in benefit vs reward. There may well be £Xm in additional tax revenue but that comes with £Xm of impact and additional cost and like all good sound fiscal decisions you need to perform both sides of the equation to reach an informed decision. You cannot just say this proposed legislation will make the country £Xm in year in additional income without offsetting the associated cost of that decision as well.. Of course unless you are wanting to support this at a soundbite level then of course that is exactly what you do!
Then on top of that fiscal equation there is an impact that would further reduce the lefts desire for social mobility by reducing the availability of something that can and does, like it or not, increase that. The even bigger irony being that most of those supporting this in political terms have benefitted from that same system they are seeking to effect. Don't people who support them ever think why that is?
But carry on shooting yourselves in the foot, personally it won't really affect me and I am just trying to explain that there are negatives as well as perceived positives to the proposal.
heppers75 said:
Interesting post there, on the BUPA and NHS argument, actually yes - if you are paying for a private health care plan which eases the burden on the state system I do think you should be entitled to tax relief on that as well...
Agreed. The notion of subsidy computes badly in what passes as Labour 'thinking'.
of course Bluebarge said:
TBF, it's not been clear for a long time why private schools should be taxed as charities when many are actually very wealthy and profitable enterprises whose fees are unaffordable for all except a very few. If they offered more scholarships they might have some justification for special treatment, but the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.
Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
This. Why are businesses treated as charities? (*) I have no problem with parents wishing to opt out of state education, but why should everyone else subsidise them.Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
(*) obviously, the rich-legislating-ruling-elite-in-Westminster gain from their reduced term fees.
The Don of Croy said:
Lending a teacher now and again.
This seemed to me to be spectacularly ill-thought through, even by Labour's current pitiful standards. First, it is a kick in the teeth to state school teachers: "Hey,. guess what, you're all just a little bit s
t at teaching. So we're going to bring in some teachers from the posh school down the road to show you clots how to do it. OK?". Yeah. That will play really well. Secondly, teachers don't exactly have tons of free time (Mrs 66 has just started teaching, and the workload is not to be sniffed at). So the teachers from fee paying schools are simply going to have to take tome out of their teaching duties to make this work. And who replaces them? Does anyone care that *two* sets of classes (the one that loses a teacher and the one that gets "random teacher for the day") get disrupted by this?
Thirdly, the additional cost of covering this disruption in the private school isn't going to be paid for with some leaves from the money tree. It will just get passed onto the hapless fee-paying parents. Oh, wait. Perhaps that bit *has* been thought through after all. Keep squeezing them until they squeak, then squeeze 'em some more!
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..
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..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff