Private schools, times a changing?

[cheesejunkie]

M1AGM said:

It absolutely does have a captive market. There are many medical situations where there is no private option. I'm surprised you dont know that.

I'm surprised you think I don't. Yes I'm aware that private health care cannot cover all problems and frequently falls back onto the NHS to wipe up their mess. I'm joking on that last bit, but theatre access, 999 services etc are still the prevail of public health care unless you're one of the super rich who can afford a private ambulance and live near to one.

I don't see that as a captive market, I see it as private leaches only being willing to provide the profitable easy pickings.

[otolith]

cheesejunkie said:

otolith said:

On that basis, would you advocate applying VAT to private healthcare too?

Never really thought about it so I'm answering on the hoof.

As mentioned I think VAT is regressive. But yes I'd probably not have a problem also applying VAT to private health care. But I've never thought about it enough to really have a strong opinion.

My wife works in the NHS and is very against private health care on a point of principal. But she's on my work private health care policy and has availed of it to skip waiting lists for a potentially life threatening but thankfully not problem. I've used it too, but twice in 15 years, I've paid for it the whole time. I'll happily take that safety net and will happily be called a hypocrite. My principals end when it comes to defence of the family and I know some of the posters who I disagree with on here are the same. Just don't tell me it's an altruistic position when it's a selfish one.

I think all of the arguments you make around applying VAT to private education apply to applying it to private healthcare too. And so do those arguments people are making against it - principally that people getting their operation done privately are still paying the same taxes but are using less of the service.

I don't think the motivation for the proposal to charge VAT on private education is any of the arguments you raise - I don't think it is fundamentally about improving the lot of those who use the state sector. At some level it is about the idea of restricting the ability of parents with more resources to gift their kids a better life, and the idea of erasing the belief of those who are schooled privately that they are somehow different from the herd, and the idea of levelling the playing field of opportunity, but at a raw political level, it's about throwing something spiteful to the activists to distract them from the lack of the more radical policies they desire. It's a bit like the Rwanda policy in that respect.

[cheesejunkie]

akirk said:

Zaichik said:

Politicians are voted into government based on what their voters want. If the majority of voters want private education to be taxed, then that is what will happen whether it is good for the country or not. That is the way democracy works.

The problem is that politicians actually believe this!
political parties gain power for a number of reasons and yes their manifesto plays a role - but it would be naive to believe that means that all their pledges are supported...

2 parties
a - manifesto says keep pistonheads - compulsory euthanasia for all males over 30
b - manifesto says get rid of pistonheads - no killing off the male poppulation

which would most on here vote for - let's assume 'b' does that mean they are voting to get rid of pistonheads?

our next election is likely to be as much a protest vote against the general incompetence of Westminster / a protest vote against the tories wasting so much time in power - as much as a vote for Labour (who seem to have remarkably few actual policies!) - that doesn't mean that people are actively voting for the replacement or want all on their manifesto.

cheesejunkie said:

Private health care exists.

The NHS don't have a captive market and people can choose and increasingly have to choose to bypass it due to underfunding. I've already mentioned so many times that you look after your own but when you allow for a two tier system you allow for underfunding.

People choosing to go private because they can is what we're actually agreeing on.

Not sure your point here?
private education exists
state system doesn't have a captive market
people can choose to bypass it...

yet no tax on private medical care - but is it not the same...?

My wife is a surgeon and is passionate about delivering through the NHS - she doesn't do private practice - however that is more that she feels there is plenty to do in the NHS - she is actually very supportive of those who wish to go to private consultants - they are not the trauma cases she deals with but the longer term patients whose quality of life will be improved (she is a hand surgeon), but where the NHS can't prioritise them over more critical patients / cancers / trauma / etc. By their going private, they reduce pressure on the NHS, reduce waiting times (which are often prioritised on time waited not need to avoid the hospital being fined), reduce cost for the NHS... stripping out patients to private has no negative impact on the NHS - putting them back in does:
- additional costs
- they sit on the waiting list according to time waiting as the hospital is fined if they wait too long, so a simple issue which can be lived with might take priority over / push back more critical care
- longer wait for the individual

Edited by akirk on Thursday 21st March 10:33

To be honest I've spent so many words making my point that I assume it's already known and don't feel the need to be overly explicit on every detail. If you just read my latest comment I can understand its lack of context but I'm doing some on here the credit of having read and disagreed with me previously.

Good on your wife, I admire her commitment and your honesty. Hand surgeon? That must take some real skill and I admire surgeons. I'm ok at a bit of DIY but I can't imagine having the motor control to deal with such small surgical movements. I'm a blunt hammer.

I've watched how some consultants hang their heads low when my wife spots them in the private practice we've went to. They don't like to be spotted, they shouldn't feel any shame. Don't misunderstand my dislike of a system as a dislike of those who are unwilling participants, it isn't. As for the willing participant supporters - fk them , I don't really mean that but I'm not 100% joking either. How to balance the fact that some will always be able to bypass vs the fact that some of them will suggest they're doing me a favour by bypassing is always going to be open to question no matter how often some think it shouldn't be questioned.

[ooid]

cheesejunkie said:

That’s one interpretation. Another is that I didn’t call anyone thick but pointed out that some are more entitled to be thick than others due to parental wealth.

There is no interpretation, you did called 'thick' and throw further assaults. You are still going on, quite awkward to say something like 'entitled to be thick due to parental wealth'

cheesejunkie said:

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing.

Let me enlighten your ignorance on that subject. (can't help with others, you seem to be a lost cause on multi dimensions).

Finland, (non-private school system) has one of the most difficult admission process for its universities. Their young population has been behind in Europe for higher education access, as they had no chance to enter. Many chose to come to U.K. or Germany for that reason (well, I have educated a few, brilliant people).

[cheesejunkie]

ooid said:

cheesejunkie said:

That’s one interpretation. Another is that I didn’t call anyone thick but pointed out that some are more entitled to be thick than others due to parental wealth.

There is no interpretation, you did called 'thick' and throw further assaults. You are still going on, quite awkward to say something like 'entitled to be thick due to parental wealth'

cheesejunkie said:

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing.

Let me enlighten your ignorance on that subject. (can't help with others, you seem to be a lost cause on multi dimensions).

Finland, (non-private school system) has one of the most difficult admission process for its universities. Their young population has been behind in Europe for higher education access, as they had no chance to enter. Many chose to come to U.K. or Germany for that reason (well, I have educated a few, brilliant people).

I'll let you enlighten me. I'll not say what I'm thinking whist you do but arrogant prick will be on the list of many other insults I've refused to use.

I did called did I? Call, not called. Insults not assaults. You're very entitled to be thick, is that a removal of your rights? Im enjoying the animosity, you aren't.

Keep trying to enlighten me. I really do like the people who tell me how I'm wrong but not those who think they're about to enlighten me as I'm enlightened and won't be convinced into believing in their prejudices.

I have two Finish nieces and nephews, don't try and tell me I'm uninformed. Have all the fun you want disagreeing.

Back on topic, how's your defence of others being disadvantaged through paying for your sprogs going? How's my cynicism going?

[EmBe]

cheesejunkie said:

Just don't tell me it's an altruistic position when it's a selfish one.

Most of us (not all, I'll grant you, but the majority) aren't arguing it's an altruistic decision.

It's a stupid decision if you assume it's one based on logic, which of course, it isn't - as I said it's a bone to those who want to 'bash the rich'. People who dislike Starmer because he's not far enough left and probably won't get the great social revolution they're hoping for, not least because the country's finances are in such a poor state.
However the consequences of this policy have the possibility, over time to have quite detrimental effects on the state system. There's also a case to be made for a moral benefit, but in the dozens of posts you've made over the last two days, you seem to have failed to convince many that if only there were more ex-private school parents in the state system, we'd see an improvement.

But for all the reasons already repeated ad infinitum there is a financial benefit of having a few thousand people paying income tax and then not availing themselves of one of the large beneficiaries of that tax.

[cheesejunkie]

EmBe said:

Most of us (not all, I'll grant you, but the majority) aren't arguing it's an altruistic decision.

It's a stupid decision if you assume it's one based on logic, which of course, it isn't - as I said it's a bone to those who want to 'bash the rich'. People who dislike Starmer because he's not far enough left and probably won't get the great social revolution they're hoping for, not least because the country's finances are in such a poor state.
However the consequences of this policy have the possibility, over time to have quite detrimental effects on the state system. There's also a case to be made for a moral benefit, but in the dozens of posts you've made over the last two days, you seem to have failed to convince many that if only there were more ex-private school parents in the state system, we'd see an improvement.

But for all the reasons already repeated ad infinitum there is a financial benefit of having a few thousand people paying income tax and then not availing themselves of one of the large beneficiaries of that tax.

I don't seek to convince. I realise that's not possible. But I'm very happy to disagree and take the lashes.

The policy has problems, I don't disagree. But the defenders getting so worked up about something when they wouldn't about other things are not people I feel overly worried about. Soz.

What you get out of your contributions will never be proportionate to how much you pay. Thinking supporting bypass mechanisms is helping others is not going to convince anyone with half a brain.

[EmBe]

cheesejunkie said:

What you get out of your contributions will never be proportionate to how much you pay. Thinking supporting bypass mechanisms is helping others is not going to convince anyone with half a brain.

Again, you seem to be investing comments with more meaning than they contain. No one is suggesting that by not paying VAT on fees is 'helping' in any great way, but those of us paying school fees are by default paying a small percentage of tax for something we're not using, leaving that amount in general taxation, which in turn is used to fund state education, among many other things.

Granted it's tiny and it's certainly a fool who'd try to convince you (or anyone else with half a brain ) that it's altruistic - but the argument that a few hudred parents, by your estimation, entering the state system will suddenly reverse decades of decline is equally specious and furthermore, insulting to those parents who've been trying to do that from the inside.

[Mr Penguin]

I don't think it's tiny, 7% of schoolchildren going into the private system frees up a lot of resources.

[JagLover]

youngsyr said:

It's a little out of date, but quite damning:

Sutton Trust said:

Two fifths of the elite examined here (39%) attended independent schools, more than five times as many as the population
at large (7%).

So if the elite roles were evenly distributed amongst the most intelligent, and assuming attendance at private school is independent of intelligence, you would expect 32% of the roles currently filled by privately educated individuals to be filled by stated educated individuals.

1 in 3!

Those privately educated form a higher proportion of those doing A levels and a higher proportion than that with the grades needed for a Russel group university.

Also attendance at a private school would not be independent of intelligence due to the fact many are selective.

[cheesejunkie]

EmBe said:

cheesejunkie said:

What you get out of your contributions will never be proportionate to how much you pay. Thinking supporting bypass mechanisms is helping others is not going to convince anyone with half a brain.

Again, you seem to be investing comments with more meaning than they contain. No one is suggesting that by not paying VAT on fees is 'helping' in any great way, but those of us paying school fees are by default paying a small percentage of tax for something we're not using, leaving that amount in general taxation, which in turn is used to fund state education, among many other things.

Granted it's tiny and it's certainly a fool who'd try to convince you (or anyone else with half a brain ) that it's altruistic - but the argument that a few hudred parents, by your estimation, entering the state system will suddenly reverse decades of decline is equally specious and furthermore, insulting to those parents who've been trying to do that from the inside.

Again, apologies for giving a st.

Some are suggesting their payment of school fees are subsidising others who don't. They're wrong if they think that by subsidising thhemselves is helping others. My problem with them doing it is not that they do it, it's that they try to say it's for my benefit. It isn't.

[M1AGM]

EmBe said:

Again, you seem to be investing comments with more meaning than they contain. No one is suggesting that by not paying VAT on fees is 'helping' in any great way, but [b]those of us paying school fees are by default paying a small percentage of tax for something we're not using, leaving that amount in general taxation, which in turn is used to fund state education, among many other things.

Granted it's tiny[/b] and it's certainly a fool who'd try to convince you (or anyone else with half a brain ) that it's altruistic - but the argument that a few hudred parents, by your estimation, entering the state system will suddenly reverse decades of decline is equally specious and furthermore, insulting to those parents who've been trying to do that from the inside.

It's not tiny though. Around 11% of government expenditure is spent on education, £131 billion in the current year. So 11% of what us 'posh rich types with the thick kids' are paying in tax goes towards the state education bill. I'd suggest that is quite a bit.

(Lets ignore the SP which is more than we spend on education (priorities right?), and our national debt interest which will soon overtake the education budget on the list of things we as a country spend our money on).

[dimots]

Private schools enable those who can afford it to opt out of a system that benefits everyone. You are not paying tax you shouldn't have to, you are paying too little tax and enabling a political system that deprives the majority of the population of benefits.

The majority of private school parents are business owners. Perhaps there should be extra scrutiny of their tax affairs to prove that they are contributing enough? After all, it would be a terrible indictment of the system if they were dodging tax to pay for private education wouldn't it?

I think it's pretty obvious that there is no benefit to the majority of the nation from the 6-7% of children who are educated at great cost outside of the state system. The idea that it is a relief to the system to have theese kids taken out and for their wealthier than average parents to feel justified in whinging about how much tax they pay is ridiculous.

Just face facts, if you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school, you could afford to pay more tax. So the obvious solution is to tax private schools out of existence, tax rich people more, put that money into education, educate our nation better for the benefit of everyone.

It's not that difficult.

[cheesejunkie]

ooid said:

cheesejunkie said:

That’s one interpretation. Another is that I didn’t call anyone thick but pointed out that some are more entitled to be thick than others due to parental wealth.

There is no interpretation, you did called 'thick' and throw further assaults. You are still going on, quite awkward to say something like 'entitled to be thick due to parental wealth'

cheesejunkie said:

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing.

Let me enlighten your ignorance on that subject. (can't help with others, you seem to be a lost cause on multi dimensions).

Finland, (non-private school system) has one of the most difficult admission process for its universities. Their young population has been behind in Europe for higher education access, as they had no chance to enter. Many chose to come to U.K. or Germany for that reason (well, I have educated a few, brilliant people).

Multiple, not multi.

My worst school review was taciturn.

I know how some will find that hard to believe. But I know when to keep my mouth shut and am very capable of doing so

Glad to hear you've educated a few, hoping you haven't successfully educated them and not into incorrect opinions. Yes I'll look.

[Mr Penguin]

cheesejunkie said:

Again, apologies for giving a st.

Some are suggesting their payment of school fees are subsidising others who don't. They're wrong if they think that by subsidising thhemselves is helping others. My problem with them doing it is not that they do it, it's that they try to say it's for my benefit. It isn't.

Can you quote someone saying they send their children to private school for altruistic reasons? I haven't seen anyone.

[General Price]

dimots said:

Private schools enable those who can afford it to opt out of a system that benefits everyone. You are not paying tax you shouldn't have to, you are paying too little tax and enabling a political system that deprives the majority of the population of benefits.

The majority of private school parents are business owners. Perhaps there should be extra scrutiny of their tax affairs to prove that they are contributing enough? After all, it would be a terrible indictment of the system if they were dodging tax to pay for private education wouldn't it?

I think it's pretty obvious that there is no benefit to the majority of the nation from the 6-7% of children who are educated at great cost outside of the state system. The idea that it is a relief to the system to have theese kids taken out and for their wealthier than average parents to feel justified in whinging about how much tax they pay is ridiculous.

Just face facts, if you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school, you could afford to pay more tax. So the obvious solution is to tax private schools out of existence, tax rich people more, put that money into education, educate our nation better for the benefit of everyone.

It's not that difficult.

So it is just envy then.

[M1AGM]

If thats not satire then you take the prize for the biggest chip. How do you know that most parents are business owners, and how would they be dodging taxes to pay school fees? And how do you know the disposable incomes of everyone? Remarkable prejudice. Are you Angela?

[cheesejunkie]

Mr Penguin said:

Can you quote someone saying they send their children to private school for altruistic reasons? I haven't seen anyone.

No. I can quote a few suggesting that they're doing the world a service by seeing their kids to private schools.

Spot the difference or willing fully ignore it.

I see no evil, I see biased people.

[dimots]

M1AGM said:

If thats not satire then you take the prize for the biggest chip. How do you know that most parents are business owners, and how would they be dodging taxes to pay school fees? And how do you know the disposable incomes of everyone? Remarkable prejudice. Are you Angela?

Old stats, but here you go:

https://www.pepf.co.uk/fact-finder/facts-and-figur...

The large majority (around 87%) of pupils at private schools come from parents who are business owners, or have professional and managerial backgrounds. The proportions have not changed much for a long time.

The below table shows the proportions of pupils according to family background.

FAMILY BACKGROUND 2004 2014

Managerial & professional 77% 78%

Intermediate occupations 5% 6%

Small Employers 7% 9%

Routine and manual occupations 6% 4%

Not working/unknown 5% 3%

[Cheib]

dimots said:

Private schools enable those who can afford it to opt out of a system that benefits everyone. You are not paying tax you shouldn't have to, you are paying too little tax and enabling a political system that deprives the majority of the population of benefits.

The majority of private school parents are business owners. Perhaps there should be extra scrutiny of their tax affairs to prove that they are contributing enough? After all, it would be a terrible indictment of the system if they were dodging tax to pay for private education wouldn't it?

I think it's pretty obvious that there is no benefit to the majority of the nation from the 6-7% of children who are educated at great cost outside of the state system. The idea that it is a relief to the system to have theese kids taken out and for their wealthier than average parents to feel justified in whinging about how much tax they pay is ridiculous.

Just face facts, if you can afford to pay for your kids to go to private school, you could afford to pay more tax. So the obvious solution is to tax private schools out of existence, tax rich people more, put that money into education, educate our nation better for the benefit of everyone.

It's not that difficult.

Dear oh dear. So much anger and so little logic.

Private school parent here….never owned a business in my life. Earnt every penny the hard way. Went to a state school.