Private schools, times a changing?

[Wombat3]

Sheepshanks said:

M1AGM said:

Oxbridge actively discriminate against private school applicants. Kids who want to stand a good chance of getting an oxbridge place often leave private after GCSE and go to the local college for that reason.

Yet it's not worked out like that for two girls we know who started uni this year - one from a private school for girls got into an Oxford college notorious for being difficult (for any applicant) to get into. She had no special cirumstances to "help" her.

A state school girl, brilliant in every respect, lots of special circumstances etc, didn't even get an interview.

Were they applying for the exact same course?

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Wombat3 said:

You may know something about the state system, but have you ever set foot in a private school? The way you talk about them suggests not.

There are also plenty of kids who go through private schools who will amount to very little, it is not a guarantee of anything. I've seen that at first hand.

Meanwhile, if you are a parent and you reckon your kids are bright enough and you can keep them on track, you don't need to pay for it just to get the academic results (or you can do so with much less money via a bit of additional tutoring or maybe you just buy a house in the right catchment area.

As above, people are paying for a lot more than just academic results

Your last two sentences reveal exactly where you are coming from on this, Its just dogma.

The caring, sharing left always reveals its true green-eyed monster face in the end.

It would also remain to be seen just how many teachers would transfer to the state sector. They work in the private sector for a reason. It would be incredibly arrogant to assume that they will just transfer and many will not.

I did say that some would transfer not all.

I have been to both Abingdon Boys and Pangbourne.
They looked quite impressive

Private school is more than the results, it’s the confidence, it’ll give a child. Essentially the message is ‘it is out there for you go and get it’ as opposed to a state school message of ‘ conform and don’t rock the boat ‘

You pro private education wallahs really do live in cloud cuckoo land with your privately uneducated utterly naisve tropes about feral kids impacting Tabitha’s chances.

It’s just lazy and ignorant, but mostly selfish.

And here’s why.

For those funding a private education out of post tax income you have my sympathy’s. Not cheap and you’ve got to be very determined to make that happen..

But they are the rarest form of parent

Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.

If VAT isn’t added then that wealth you are sitting on stays in your family. You won’t need to dip deeper into the trust fund, But if it’s taxed everyone gets a slice as you have to spend it to pay for the privilege of a private education.

Your force to give back to society. That’s a good thing.

[DonkeyApple]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.

Stats please, otherwise that could be mistaken for chippy Valleys stuff.

[Wombat3]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

I did say that some would transfer not all.

I have been to both Abingdon Boys and Pangbourne.
They looked quite impressive

Private school is more than the results, it’s the confidence, it’ll give a child. Essentially the message is ‘it is out there for you go and get it’ as opposed to a state school message of ‘ conform and don’t rock the boat ‘

You pro private education wallahs really do live in cloud cuckoo land with your privately uneducated utterly naisve tropes about feral kids impacting Tabitha’s chances.

It’s just lazy and ignorant, but mostly selfish.

And here’s why.

For those funding a private education out of post tax income you have my sympathy’s. Not cheap and you’ve got to be very determined to make that happen..

But they are the rarest form of parent

Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.

If VAT isn’t added then that wealth you are sitting on stays in your family. You won’t need to dip deeper into the trust fund, But if it’s taxed everyone gets a slice as you have to spend it to pay for the privilege of a private education.

Your force to give back to society. That’s a good thing.

Remarkably simplistic and assumptive about the state of peoples' finances.

You are correct about why people use private schools , its about the whole education. its not just about academic results and its not a guarantee of anything in that regard. If kids don't want to work and parents don't care enough then they will coast and come a cropper accordingly.

I also happen to think the trope about keeping kids away from the "feral offspring of lesser mortals" is also not a thing - at least not to the vast majority of parents I ever met in the private school system.

Its just divisive nonsense that suits a narrative to try & justify this.

The reality is that people who are paying for private education are just getting on with their lives doing what they consider to be the best they can for their families. They do not give a second thought to anyone or anything else. Pretty much like everyone else.

Its a bit like the supposed north-south divide - people in the south do not spend their days dreaming up ways to keep the "Norvern monkeys" down, they are just getting on with their lives,

If grandparents are paying for it then so be it, its a better use of funds than it sitting in some ever-accumulating investment account to end up being subject to 40% IHT !

Once again you make it all about some kind of class war and its just not.

As has been said repeatedly, the very wealthy can and will pay, its the ones in the middle (and there are plenty of them) who will not be able to. Add to that the removal of bursaries and scholarships from those that could not afford it in the first place and the effects are obvious, it will just make the whole system more divided and the private system more elitest. It will do nothing for overall standards of education or tax revenues either and very likely will introduce additional pressures into the state system.

Anyway, its all been said before.

Those that think that its a good idea to level down by dragging others back will never get it.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Ok out of the people I know with kids at private school

2 are funding it from post tax income, and are not themselves privately educated. I have some respect for that as that shows commitment although in both cases their kids would have been fine elsewhere

4 are funded from Grandparents and were themselves privately educated at the same school. One of whose parent is a copper from the valleys. And married into some wealth, and it’s from her side that’s paying for it.

1 runs his own business was himself privately educated at a minor school but is the MD of a business his Dad set up, and he also has a trust fund.

So on that straw poll I’d say close to 75% of kids at private school are funded at least in part , outside of the parents income.

[Wombat3]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Ok out of the people I know with kids at private school

2 are funding it from post tax income, and are not themselves privately educated. I have some respect for that as that shows commitment although in both cases their kids would have been fine elsewhere

4 are funded from Grandparents and were themselves privately educated at the same school. One of whose parent is a copper from the valleys. And married into some wealth, and it’s from her side that’s paying for it.

1 runs his own business was himself privately educated at a minor school but is the MD of a business his Dad set up, and he also has a trust fund.

So on that straw poll I’d say close to 75% of kids at private school are funded at least in part , outside of the parents income.

So what?

Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?

The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.

[okgo]

You have zero idea what anyone’s kids would be like anywhere until it’s a reality. It is one of my biggest reasons for sending my own kid as my own school experience was shaped by distraction so drastically.

And 75% of your little world isn’t a representative or statistically useful group. As I’m sure you know.

Edited by okgo on Sunday 26th May 17:55

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Wombat3 said:

So what?

Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?

The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.

So what?


You can’t possibly be serious with that comment!

So what? If your daddy is paying for it, or a trust fund is paying for it, you can fking afford the VAT.

If not, as stated you have my sympathies. Perhaps that’s the answer, VAT on those kids funded outside of net income. Seems fair.

[M1AGM]

DonkeyApple said:

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.

Stats please, otherwise that could be mistaken for chippy Valleys stuff.

To be fair, I know of several examples of all of those at our school. The minority are paying fees themselves out of post tax income like myself.

Maybe I’m an outlier, but I send my kids to private school so they can get a decent rounded education in order to be able to choose what they want to do in life that will give them the most happiness. If they want to be a CEO of a FTSE100 or a shelf stacker in Tesco, as long as they are happy with that and it was their educated choice, its fine by me.

[Leithen]

Regardless of the source of private school fee income, it is overwhelmingly from taxed income. The savings to the state from private education is in the multiple billions. Adding VAT to a subsection of education charges simply adds to the tax take from those meeting private education costs and adds to the overall subsidy of the state by such individuals.

A triple whammy packaged and sold as some attempt to achieve equality. It will do nothing of the sort of course. But if you want to believe that, keep telling yourself that it does.

[Wombat3]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Wombat3 said:

So what?

Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?

The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.

So what?


You can’t possibly be serious with that comment!

So what? If your daddy is paying for it, or a trust fund is paying for it, you can fking afford the VAT.

If not, as stated you have my sympathies. Perhaps that’s the answer, VAT on those kids funded outside of net income. Seems fair.

Absolutely serious.

On what basis do you assume that if the grandparents are the feepayers they can automatically afford an additional 20% ?

Its assumptive & simplistic nonsense.

It doesn't matter who is paying the fees, an additional 20% is an additional 20%.

Once again though, you seem to have a huge issue with other people's wealth. You seem to see an ability to afford something as "unfair" just because other people cant.

Your enthusiasm for this tax appears to have much more to do with taking money off "rich people" as anything else. It does't really seem to matter what the actual results of it are just as long as rich bds pay more,

Have I got that right now?

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

[Wombat3]

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

Its a fair question.

The real issue at hand is whether this ill thought out stupidity is indicative of what else they might cook up.

Lets hope not.

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

Its a fair question.

The real issue at hand is whether this ill thought out stupidity is indicative of what else they might cook up.

Lets hope not.

I wouldn't worry too much yet, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge.

Many a gov promised x and it never happened or did but looked quite different.

Even if it did, for all the reports no one has a crystal ball. What might happen might well be different to what people think.

[Wombat3]

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

Its a fair question.

The real issue at hand is whether this ill thought out stupidity is indicative of what else they might cook up.

Lets hope not.

I wouldn't worry too much yet, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge.

Many a gov promised x and it never happened or did but looked quite different.

Even if it did, for all the reports no one has a crystal ball. What might happen might well be different to what people think.

All true, however, one can only look at the last time with the likes of the misuse of PFI , the raid on pension funds and the assorted other fkwittery that went on.

The problem with this one is also how little thought evidently went into announcing it without really understanding the impact. Or maybe they just don't care what the impacts are because its useful "red meat"? (neither is good!)

Its already moving the dial in an irreversible way and they are not even in government yet.

Absolute fkwits, the lot of them.

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

All true, however, one can only look at the last time with the likes of the misuse of PFI , the raid on pension funds and the assorted other fkwittery that went on.

The problem with this one is also how little thought evidently went into announcing it without really understanding the impact. Or maybe they just don't care what the impacts are because its useful "red meat"? (neither is good!)

Its already moving the dial in an irreversible way and they are not even in government yet.

Absolute fkwits, the lot of them.

They might well not be bothered or they think there will be issues but the juice is worth the squeeze. Nearly all policies are winners and losers. Most gov don't worry about those outside their circle too much, (OT) this gov had many examples.

Most to be impacted by this will in various provincial towns in the south. SKS is hardly likely to get an irate phone call from the Surrey Labour Association.

I doubt very many Labour supporters will know much about it, the general public close to zero.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Wombat3 said:

Absolutely serious.

On what basis do you assume that if the grandparents are the feepayers they can automatically afford an additional 20% ?

Its assumptive & simplistic nonsense.

It doesn't matter who is paying the fees, an additional 20% is an additional 20%.

Once again though, you seem to have a huge issue with other people's wealth. You seem to see an ability to afford something as "unfair" just because other people cant.

Your enthusiasm for this tax appears to have much more to do with taking money off "rich people" as anything else. It does't really seem to matter what the actual results of it are just as long as rich bds pay more,

Have I got that right now?

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

It’s no more assumptive non sense than your assumptions about me being jealous of rich bds.

You’re not as rich as you think if you are still taking handouts from the bank of mum and dad as a fully fledged adult. It’s embarrassing. Yeh you have a nice house, and car and a good job but still you take your parents legacy because you can’t or won’t fund your kids private education and god forbid you choose a state school.

And it’s very very likely that the good fortune you find yourself in is due to your family wealth and contacts. Do you think you’d be in your position if your parents were social workers?


Very very few grandparents are in the position to fund school fees for multiple grand children. Because they won’t be doing to just for your kids. But for your brother and /or sisters kids. We could be talking 6 or 7 grandchildren with ease. All costing 15k per term or year if it’s a no mark private school. That’s some serious financial clout.

You should be paying some fking tax on that wealth if you are choosing to spend it on a discretionary purchase. It’s far better for society if you and others do.

And I am not a socialist, far from it, but there are some things that need to change and a tax on wealth is defo one of them.

[okgo]

Angry man.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

okgo said:

Angry man.

Cleared I’ve touched a nerve of yours.

[okgo]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Cleared I’ve touched a nerve of yours.

Not at all, I just think it’s amusing how worked up you’ve got about this and how you’ve had to call the blokes life embarrassing to get your message over. Bizarre.