So it's class war then...

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

FredClogs said:

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

But it's been explained on a number of occasions that you're not subsidising anyone - there is a net benefit to the tune of £4.7bn, apparently...

What a shallow statement that is, lost count of the number of posters who have moaned about their tax on salary. Stock reply is 'we all must contribute to Society, the more you earn the more you pay in tax' seems fair. The next response will be 'but I want to choose where I spend my money and how much I want to spend. I dont want the Government to decide where the money is spent'.
Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.

[heppers75]

Bluebarge said:

heppers75 said:

The BUPA statement, you have some facts to back that up do you? Or just a sweeping statement?

It really is not, it is just an assessment of the other side of the coin to the decision, which you are still ignoring - do you just not understand it or not believe it? If the latter why don't you?

As for the last paragraph, I think that coupled with the liposuction comment really shows your prejudice in the light it so duly deserves!

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 25th November 14:52

on the BUPA statement, like the Tarquin statement, it was bleeding obviously tongue in cheek, but since BUPA handles mostly minor elective surgery, and all the big expensive stuff (care for the elderly, emergency surgery, complex surgery) is done by the NHS then I can't see that the tax saving to the state makes it worthwhile subsidising BUPA. And as to it not being Tory policy, well that clearly is a fact.

As to your second para - you are railing against something that has not been proposed and will not happen - Labour are trying to nudge some private schools to do more to justify their charitable status - so why are you banging on about the Domesday scenario? - it will never come to that because Labour know it would be too damaging to their electoral prospects.

I harbour no prejudice at all - I am in no way against private education, but I can see why charitable status is an anomaly. That does not lead me to conclude that private schools should be closed, but the idea that they should mentor some state schools or their pupils is by no means absurd, in my opinion.

On BUPA, no it really does not and I suggest you avail yourself of facts prior to quipping to make a point... http://www.bupa.co.uk/jahia/webdav/site/bupacouk/s... seems like there are some pretty major things on that list, I also have personal (and painfuil) first hand experience of the major surgies and procedures they undertake.

I am not railing against anything, I am merely pointing out that there is a net figure to be arrived at when you consider benefits and that net figure contains both tangible and intangible elements, I have not actually seen anyone including your good self even acknowledge that.

As for the anomaly of the status, I will say again have you actually delved into the facts and the figures to understand the Net effect of what you seek to support? By which I mean firstly that private schools already do that, also that to remove those tax breaks and incentives is not a zero sum game and that the actual net effect of doing so would actually in all likelihood not be a positive one for anyone who is a part of the equation in either the tangible or intangibles of the situation.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a position, that would be an awful thing to do!

[Randomthoughts]

crankedup said:

Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.

But taxes DO NOT SUBSIDISE private education. The 'subsidy' which enables these schools to charge what they do and remain profitable means that more can afford them. Make it more expensive, then less can afford it, less people attend, and more people have to have their education funded by the state.

The 'subsidy' returns massive savings for the government. It's as stupid as trying to get rid of smoking 'because of the cost to the NHS'. The government can't afford for people to stop smoking entirely - the NHS would vanish.

[crankedup]

Randomthoughts said:

FredClogs said:

How incredibly condescending, you really should try and mix with proles more often, we are quite adept at forming our own conclusions and opinions - in my experience it's one of the advantages of less than perfect education.

I can only refer you back to what Tristan Hunt said, quoted in the article and not what you imagine or wish that he had said.

So you have no answer to the valid points raised, and instead throw your toys out and refer people to the soundbites that have already been discredited.

Have you ever thought of applying for a position in Labour's PR department?

Interesting you should mention that! I was sure somebody with a name just like Fred Clogs (was it you Fred)applied for the Tory P.R job vacated by the ex newspaper boy, a couple of years back IIRC. Got turned down, far to honest to be of use to them.

[edh]

Randomthoughts said:

crankedup said:

Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.

But taxes DO NOT SUBSIDISE private education. The 'subsidy' which enables these schools to charge what they do and remain profitable means that more can afford them. Make it more expensive, then less can afford it, less people attend, and more people have to have their education funded by the state.

The 'subsidy' returns massive savings for the government. It's as stupid as trying to get rid of smoking 'because of the cost to the NHS'. The government can't afford for people to stop smoking entirely - the NHS would vanish.

"fewer"

[paranoid airbag]

turbobloke said:

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'.

Also agreed, that seems very fair. An organisation successfully competing with free at point of use, whilst saving the state money, shouldn't be forced to contribute to its rival.

[crankedup]

Randomthoughts said:

crankedup said:

Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.

But taxes DO NOT SUBSIDISE private education. The 'subsidy' which enables these schools to charge what they do and remain profitable means that more can afford them. Make it more expensive, then less can afford it, less people attend, and more people have to have their education funded by the state.

The 'subsidy' returns massive savings for the government. It's as stupid as trying to get rid of smoking 'because of the cost to the NHS'. The government can't afford for people to stop smoking entirely - the NHS would vanish.

Good play on words but whatever the Government calls it the end result all comes from us taxpayers. If the Government decide to tax any group less that 'less' means less to other groups, its a choice. This is the point I was making.I would rather see the money slid over to the state schools giving those kids a better education. Thats the kids who's parents cannot afford a private education and the kids of foreign lands who are fortunate to benefit from private education in Britain.

Lets be honest the subsidy is merely a political sticking plaster masquerading as an equal opportunities policy.

[The Don of Croy]

FredClogs said:

Cherry picking the brightest poor kids is not getting involved and experiencing wider society, it's something else. It's to be encouraged and good for the individuals concerned but it does nothing for wider community relations and goes no way to redressing the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality and parity of opportunity/choice and life experiences.

How would you go about redressing a 'parity of life experiences' without ruining the point of said experiences (their uniqueness being one factor that makes them useful presumably)?

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

Good play on words but whatever the Government calls it the end result all comes from us taxpayers. If the Government decide to tax any group less that 'less' means less to other groups, its a choice. This is the point I was making.I would rather see the money slid over to the state schools giving those kids a better education. Thats the kids who's parents cannot afford a private education and the kids of foreign lands who are fortunate to benefit from private education in Britain.

Lets be honest the subsidy is merely a political sticking plaster masquerading as an equal opportunities policy.

Is it really?

Or is it a subsidy from the government to allow private education to be more achievable for lower income earners?

Does anyone really think the net increase in available funds that making this alteration would really achieve would make that much of a tangible benefit to the state education system?

Heck does anyone even know enough to accurately calculate the net amount? I would suggest looking at the broad figures it is not as much as some people would like to think.

[crankedup]

fblm said:

I went to one of the most expensive UK public schools on a bursary. The school fees would have been more than my dad ever earned, in fact he was unemployed for several years I was there and we lived with my Grandma. I was far from unique. This stuff about Tarquin and Gemmima is stereotypical crap that betrays the motivation of the person making the argument far clearer than anything they actually have to say. FWIW I'd say half the kids were genuinely wealthy and half were from middle class families who scrimped and saved every penny to educate their kids.

So remove charitable status and the main difference is the school now has to pay business rates. They would have to hike fees (driving those middle class kids into the state system, to be replaced presumably by dumber foreign kids with the money), lower entry requirements, reduce scholarships and bursaries, and would have no incentive to keep sharing their facilities with anyone for free. How is this supposed to be a good thing?

But would they have to hike their fee's? Perhaps they may have some room for introducing efficiency saving's? I don't know, never had a look or read any articles regarding this matter. But it seems to me that whilst most businesses carry out routine efficiency investigations, or should do, then education establishments in the private sector would do the same. Anyone know anything about such issues?

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Good play on words but whatever the Government calls it the end result all comes from us taxpayers. If the Government decide to tax any group less that 'less' means less to other groups, its a choice. This is the point I was making.I would rather see the money slid over to the state schools giving those kids a better education. Thats the kids who's parents cannot afford a private education and the kids of foreign lands who are fortunate to benefit from private education in Britain.

Lets be honest the subsidy is merely a political sticking plaster masquerading as an equal opportunities policy.

Is it really?

Or is it a subsidy from the government to allow private education to be more achievable for lower income earners?

Does anyone really think the net increase in available funds that making this alteration would really achieve would make that much of a tangible benefit to the state education system?

Heck does anyone even know enough to accurately calculate the net amount? I would suggest looking at the broad figures it is not as much as some people would like to think.

If it is a subsidy that allows for lower income group students a 'place' then it hardly benefits the wider Society as such.

IMHO it is much to do with politics as it is with education and money. When we look at the percentages involved with positions within Society being held by those people who have attended superior education facilities it becomes abundantly clear that class is still very much an English problem.

We can expect much more of these type of 'stirring' stories over the coming months, before falling strangely quite again.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

What a shallow statement that is, lost count of the number of posters who have moaned about their tax on salary. Stock reply is 'we all must contribute to Society, the more you earn the more you pay in tax' seems fair. The next response will be 'but I want to choose where I spend my money and how much I want to spend. I dont want the Government to decide where the money is spent'.
Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.

No he doesn't have a 'fair case' as it's been shown that it is highly likely that removing this so called subsidy would actually cost taxpayers money.

[paranoid airbag]

crankedup said:

But would they have to hike their fee's? Perhaps they may have some room for introducing efficiency saving's? I don't know, never had a look or read any articles regarding this matter. But it seems to me that whilst most businesses carry out routine efficiency investigations, or should do, then education establishments in the private sector would do the same. Anyone know anything about such issues?

(Sorry) you could use some private sector lessons on apostrophes. (Really couldn't resist).

It's possible but that's a rather blase attitude isn't it? If a government report finds all public schools could make significant efficiency savings I'd be quite suprised - since even if the govt did find a major and real inefficiency in the first school, by the time it reached the last that inefficiency would have long since been leaked and eliminated by everyone else. More likely any attempt would force schools to cut genuinely useful stuff just to avoid the bad PR.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

But would they have to hike their fee's? Perhaps they may have some room for introducing efficiency saving's? I don't know, never had a look or read any articles regarding this matter. But it seems to me that whilst most businesses carry out routine efficiency investigations, or should do, then education establishments in the private sector would do the same. Anyone know anything about such issues?

For what it is worth yes; to a degree anyway.

In the sense that the person that looks after the financial side of my sons school has become a friend in the last couple of years as his son is in the same class as ours and they get on and have been on various sleep overs etc. As a result he and I have spoken about this matter a couple of times as it has come up a few times in the press over recent years as we know. From what I know the situation for my sons school at least is precisely that they would look to downsize on the basis that they would expect to lose students, remove bursaries, scholarships and other elements from the budget that they are required to have to get the statuses (which add up to quite a saving), also attract more overseas students and of course overall fees would increase, They actually have some reasonably well formed contingency plans for as and when this happens as there is an expectation that at some point it will come.

The fee's would increase by about 20%-25% as I was told and the school would maybe look to sell off some land as it is positioned to do so being where it is and it would be prime development real estate. So much so that another friend and fellow parent who is senior in a major UK house builder has assisted in the contingency planning on the basis that he would get first crack of the whip on the land in question.

[irocfan]

edh said:

..well maybe you have hit on something there..

I would like every kid to go to a good local school. I don't see why that's so hard. see Finland.. I believe that if the people who run the country used the state school system, they would make sure they were better for everyone. And yes I include Diane Abbott and any other Labour MP who doesn't use the state system in my criticism.

This isn't an attack on the "middle" - just work out how high up the income scale you need to be to pay tens of thousands in school fees every year.

Anyway, don't worry about sending your kids to local schools in special measures - I'm sure turbobloke said recently they will get preferential treatment over privately educated kids and stand a better chance of landing the best jobs.

maybe now, I don't know - what I do know is that I went to private school and my father was a Staff Sergeant in the army... hardly the stuff of a profligate lifestyle

[Derek Smith]

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.

So tell me again why this is a good idea?

From what I read, the total money the average school saved by not paying their full rate entitlement was £60,000. The larger the school, the more rates they saved, so a smaller school would save less and it follows that any penalty from the government would be that much less. A small private school would therefore, one assumes, pay half that maybe.

That means that if they sacked one teacher, they'd be in pocket if you take on-costs into consideration. But they don't have to.

On top of that, that is the maximum and from what I can gather, there would be a sliding scale.

The fees are set by what the schools can charge. I can't see this changing even if labour gets in.

Further, to attain charity status, the schools have to provide some form of service to the local/national community. One private school I know of provides facilities for a team sport and is national rather than local. What this means is that teams can come and play at their ground for half a dozen matches a year. Or rather not at their ground, but at the one they used to have until it became unsuitable. When their current pitch needs major refurbishment, they will make major changes to the charity one, stopping any team from using it for a couple of years, and then the hoi poloi can use their old one.

In other words it costs them little, certainly less than £60kpa. And it is a big school.

A considerable number of private schools 'do their bit' and, if what the report suggests is true, then these will not have their concessions - i.e. funding - removed. There are many that do not. Where I used to live schools virtually side by side took considerably different views of what service to the local community meant.

One highly regarded, at least if the fees are anything to go by, local private school provided lots of facilities to local kids. And good on them. I would assume that this school would not have any reduction in their rate cut. Yet within 10 miles or so, there is one school which takes the mickey. Part of their service to the community is stopping talented children from taking part in county matches because of their 'investment' in talented children. They suggest they give free education to such children but they get more back than what they pay in.

The rate rebate has always depended on a school's charity basis. It is only right. If they don't do their bit, as many don't, then they need to be encouraged.

No matter how I cut it, a 20% increase in fees doesn't seem to be likely.

So what this policy seems to say is that schools claiming charity status should play by the rules. If some do not then it is unfair on those private schools which do their bit.

In my day there was a different system and some 'state' schools could charge students. I went to one. It was excellent and I only wish I availed myself of all the advantages on offer. It would be nice if all private schools were obliged to provided such facilities nowadays as a balance against their savings.

So if my reading of it is correct, it is improbable that private schools will have to increase fees. All they have to do is something for the local community.

There are other advantages to charity status as well, including financial ones. So they should comply with the rules.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Good play on words but whatever the Government calls it the end result all comes from us taxpayers. If the Government decide to tax any group less that 'less' means less to other groups, its a choice. This is the point I was making.I would rather see the money slid over to the state schools giving those kids a better education. Thats the kids who's parents cannot afford a private education and the kids of foreign lands who are fortunate to benefit from private education in Britain.

Lets be honest the subsidy is merely a political sticking plaster masquerading as an equal opportunities policy.

Is it really?

Or is it a subsidy from the government to allow private education to be more achievable for lower income earners?

Does anyone really think the net increase in available funds that making this alteration would really achieve would make that much of a tangible benefit to the state education system?

Heck does anyone even know enough to accurately calculate the net amount? I would suggest looking at the broad figures it is not as much as some people would like to think.

If it is a subsidy that allows for lower income group students a 'place' then it hardly benefits the wider Society as such.

IMHO it is much to do with politics as it is with education and money. When we look at the percentages involved with positions within Society being held by those people who have attended superior education facilities it becomes abundantly clear that class is still very much an English problem.

We can expect much more of these type of 'stirring' stories over the coming months, before falling strangely quite again.

I disagree, it is an aspirational goal to be achieved if you choose to look at it as a reward on success. If it is subsidised to a degree then that reward can be achieved with less success than were it not present no? To my mind delivering the benefits of success further down the economic spectrum is exactly what social mobility is and should be very much what our governments ought to be doing.

I disagree, the same can be said of the USA and they don't have a class system, they do have some very good fee paying schools though!

Yes we can, it is as I said further down this thread - whipping up the voters by giving them 10% of the real facts but giving them a target to vote against as opposed to someone worthy of voting for!

The quintessential "race to the bottom"

[Derek Smith]

irocfan said:

maybe now, I don't know - what I do know is that I went to private school and my father was a Staff Sergeant in the army... hardly the stuff of a profligate lifestyle

The army used to pay part of the fee for those posted overseas. Has that been stopped?

[heppers75]

Derek Smith said:

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.

So tell me again why this is a good idea?

From what I read, the total money the average school saved by not paying their full rate entitlement was £60,000. The larger the school, the more rates they saved, so a smaller school would save less and it follows that any penalty from the government would be that much less. A small private school would therefore, one assumes, pay half that maybe.

That means that if they sacked one teacher, they'd be in pocket if you take on-costs into consideration. But they don't have to.

On top of that, that is the maximum and from what I can gather, there would be a sliding scale.

The fees are set by what the schools can charge. I can't see this changing even if labour gets in.

Further, to attain charity status, the schools have to provide some form of service to the local/national community. One private school I know of provides facilities for a team sport and is national rather than local. What this means is that teams can come and play at their ground for half a dozen matches a year. Or rather not at their ground, but at the one they used to have until it became unsuitable. When their current pitch needs major refurbishment, they will make major changes to the charity one, stopping any team from using it for a couple of years, and then the hoi poloi can use their old one.

In other words it costs them little, certainly less than £60kpa. And it is a big school.

A considerable number of private schools 'do their bit' and, if what the report suggests is true, then these will not have their concessions - i.e. funding - removed. There are many that do not. Where I used to live schools virtually side by side took considerably different views of what service to the local community meant.

One highly regarded, at least if the fees are anything to go by, local private school provided lots of facilities to local kids. And good on them. I would assume that this school would not have any reduction in their rate cut. Yet within 10 miles or so, there is one school which takes the mickey. Part of their service to the community is stopping talented children from taking part in county matches because of their 'investment' in talented children. They suggest they give free education to such children but they get more back than what they pay in.

The rate rebate has always depended on a school's charity basis. It is only right. If they don't do their bit, as many don't, then they need to be encouraged.

No matter how I cut it, a 20% increase in fees doesn't seem to be likely.

So what this policy seems to say is that schools claiming charity status should play by the rules. If some do not then it is unfair on those private schools which do their bit.

In my day there was a different system and some 'state' schools could charge students. I went to one. It was excellent and I only wish I availed myself of all the advantages on offer. It would be nice if all private schools were obliged to provided such facilities nowadays as a balance against their savings.

So if my reading of it is correct, it is improbable that private schools will have to increase fees. All they have to do is something for the local community.

There are other advantages to charity status as well, including financial ones. So they should comply with the rules.

If that were how it was both judged and enacted Derek I would utterly agree with you.

That really is not, at least not what I see is being said - however I may have the wrong end of the stick.

It is certainly not however what some on here are also proposing either.

[irocfan]

Derek Smith said:

irocfan said:

maybe now, I don't know - what I do know is that I went to private school and my father was a Staff Sergeant in the army... hardly the stuff of a profligate lifestyle

The army used to pay part of the fee for those posted overseas. Has that been stopped?

dude - 35 years ago, no idea!