Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
u-boat said:
pork911 said:
absolutely, where can other businesses also sign up for this ambitious and positive tax treatment?
Presumably some sort of accountant or financial advisor can help with the many positive tax advantages available to you when running a business? richhead said:
Mr Penguin said:
dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Even at the top level, there will be people striving and budgeting to pay the fees. I think someone has already given an example of someone like that on this thread.Will parents wanting to help their children perhaps (shock horror) by spending some money also be stopped from paying for tutors or spending money moving to a catchment area where the schools are better or maybe buying books with that unfair money or unfairly passing on other advantages to their children.
M1AGM said:
u-boat said:
pork911 said:
absolutely, where can other businesses also sign up for this ambitious and positive tax treatment?
Presumably some sort of accountant or financial advisor can help with the many positive tax advantages available to you when running a business? https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-considers-bi...
u-boat said:
richhead said:
Mr Penguin said:
dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Even at the top level, there will be people striving and budgeting to pay the fees. I think someone has already given an example of someone like that on this thread.Will parents wanting to help their children perhaps (shock horror) by spending some money also be stopped from paying for tutors or spending money moving to a catchment area where the schools are better or maybe buying books with that unfair money or unfairly passing on other advantages to their children.
Answer to 'unfairness' = State-managed eugenics programme + State-run child rearing farms (ha ha ha tee hee hee ho ho ho). Not a chance.
Unfortunately the State is in a state of ongoing uselessness anyway, with politicians and administrators who know better than others what others need, combining to make that State of uselessness. That's without the utter unacceptability of State-managed eugenics and State-run child rearing farms.
In any case, as soon as the first two robots left a state-run child rearing farm, their futures would start to become unequal. The real world is a world of unequals, people should have realised that by now, but political ideology has to be blind to reality or it would die (again). Forcing everyone into identikit grey tunics hasn't worked yet, nor will it.
Actually stop there, Labour will be in gov't soon and things can only get better including hammering independent schools which will make the country a great place once again, Labour will MBGA.
richhead said:
Mr Penguin said:
dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Even at the top level, there will be people striving and budgeting to pay the fees. I think someone has already given an example of someone like that on this thread.I’m happy to accept that there will be a very small number of parents at the likes of Eton and Harrow who can afford £50k pa but couldn’t afford a little bit more than that. They might have to move their boys to a school which, even with VAT, is only £50k pa. Or maybe even stop boarding and use a private day school at £30k pa (plus VAT). But that will be a minority of parents at these schools. And there will be plenty of wealthy parents happy to take any places at Eton which become free.
The bigger effect will be at the £10-15k pa day schools where parents are already stretched and there isn’t the option to “downsize” any further, other than go to the local State school and suddenly have an extra £15k pa per child to spend on other things. For example, a bigger mortgage for a house in the catchment of a good State school, or lots of private tuition (VATable?) to keep them ahead of the other State school kids without such wealthy parents.
Tom8 said:
You think charities are fund raising, benevolent friendly places?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-considers-bi...
Where did I say that?https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-considers-bi...
turbobloke said:
)
Answer to 'unfairness' = State-managed eugenics programme + State-run child rearing farms (ha ha ha tee hee hee ho ho ho). Not a chance.
Unfortunately the State is in a state of ongoing uselessness anyway, with politicians and administrators who know better than others what others need, combining to make that State of uselessness. That's without the utter unacceptability of State-managed eugenics and State-run child rearing farms.
In any case, as soon as the first two robots left a state-run child rearing farm, their futures would start to become unequal. The real world is a world of unequals, people should have realised that by now, but political ideology has to be blind to reality or it would die (again). Forcing everyone into identikit grey tunics hasn't worked yet, nor will it.
Actually stop there, Labour will be in gov't soon and things can only get better including hammering independent schools which will make the country a great place once again, Labour will MBGA.
Come on turbo, where’s the harm in a bit of eugenics? I’m obviously fAnswer to 'unfairness' = State-managed eugenics programme + State-run child rearing farms (ha ha ha tee hee hee ho ho ho). Not a chance.
Unfortunately the State is in a state of ongoing uselessness anyway, with politicians and administrators who know better than others what others need, combining to make that State of uselessness. That's without the utter unacceptability of State-managed eugenics and State-run child rearing farms.
In any case, as soon as the first two robots left a state-run child rearing farm, their futures would start to become unequal. The real world is a world of unequals, people should have realised that by now, but political ideology has to be blind to reality or it would die (again). Forcing everyone into identikit grey tunics hasn't worked yet, nor will it.
Actually stop there, Labour will be in gov't soon and things can only get better including hammering independent schools which will make the country a great place once again, Labour will MBGA.
king not serious on that one.Eugenics, really?. I know you’re not that stupid.
Zigster said:
The bigger effect will be at the £10-15k pa day schools where parents are already stretched and there isn’t the option to “downsize” any further,
It's these little schools that will close - dumping maybe 200 pupils at a time into the already stretched state system. I know of at least two (via their governors) who have closure on the agenda if there is more than a 10% downward swing in fees.Pretty disruptive for the pupils and costly for taxpayers.
NDA said:
Zigster said:
The bigger effect will be at the £10-15k pa day schools where parents are already stretched and there isn’t the option to “downsize” any further,
It's these little schools that will close - dumping maybe 200 pupils at a time into the already stretched state system. I know of at least two (via their governors) who have closure on the agenda if there is more than a 10% downward swing in fees.Pretty disruptive for the pupils and costly for taxpayers.
Do people really think these kids won’t be hugely affected (more than just not having lobster) or that their parents will somehow be able to improve the (now more overcrowded) local schools where current parents have failed? Or that some more money will be available and fix the issue?
It’s just old school failed politics to try and stoke people up for some votes. I don’t think it’s even popular with most voters who actually like a bit of aspiration not this old class war tired dogma.
Angela Rayner raised this at a labour conference years ago and even said she wanted to assimilate private school assets into the state but it was unpopular and dropped. This ain’t popular either and isn’t a good policy. It won’t help anything and is actually likely to exacerbate the issues in state schools with overcrowding not improve them.
It will likely increase inequality or opportunities also as only the richest will be able to afford private school rather than now where far more can.
Parents engaged in their children’s outcomes will always find ways to help them and yes some of that will involve their access to resources and wealth.
Worth noting many of those small lower-tier private schools have been closing over the past 10 years anyway. They’ve been getting squeezed from all angles:
a) Middle class families feeling the pressure caused by rising housing costs; the house swallows much of the spare income previously available to fund private education
b) In many areas the state sector has massively improved since the mid-1990s. Not least as parents squeezed by (a) gentrify the local state primary schools. If you are also a parent getting squeezed by (a), even if you could scrimp and sacrifice your way into private education you might
- Look at the lower tiers of the market and say “it’s not so clearly better to be worth paying for”
- Look at the gentrified local state schools and say “they seem fine for all my friends/people like me”
c) Add in rising costs for schools (especially wages), plus the rising opportunity cost of the property/land they are sitting on
It’s easy to see why the economics have really started to struggle for these small private schools. Adding VAT will speed up an existing trend.
a) Middle class families feeling the pressure caused by rising housing costs; the house swallows much of the spare income previously available to fund private education
b) In many areas the state sector has massively improved since the mid-1990s. Not least as parents squeezed by (a) gentrify the local state primary schools. If you are also a parent getting squeezed by (a), even if you could scrimp and sacrifice your way into private education you might
- Look at the lower tiers of the market and say “it’s not so clearly better to be worth paying for”
- Look at the gentrified local state schools and say “they seem fine for all my friends/people like me”
c) Add in rising costs for schools (especially wages), plus the rising opportunity cost of the property/land they are sitting on
It’s easy to see why the economics have really started to struggle for these small private schools. Adding VAT will speed up an existing trend.
Any floating voter considering voting Labour in the next election should look at this policy and be warned.
You may not have children, you may not have children at private school, you may not ever be able to afford private education, you may even think private schooling is elitist and unfair but, if you are a household or individual making it on your own with little or no state support, this policy should worry you profoundly.
It has nothing to do with adding VAT to school fees; it has everything to do with Labour showing their hand that they are still the party of spite and envy politics; they are still the party that will put dogma over good fiscal sense; they are still the party that believe that they should have more authority over your money and your life than you.
Bridget Phillips on and Rachel Reeves are both highly intelligent people. They know full well that, however you try to argue it, the maths doesn't stack up on this one. They do know, however, that envy politics plays well with a big chunk of their core vote and placated the Corbynite headbangers in the PLP. They have alighted on this policy to trumpet because its a 'safe space' to indicate that the same old La bour shark is very much in the water - a big impact but felt by a very small number of people, a large proportion of whom were never going to vote Labour anyway.
I urge floating voters not to be taken in; here is a party that want your money and will trash your standard of living and financial security to get it.
You may not have children, you may not have children at private school, you may not ever be able to afford private education, you may even think private schooling is elitist and unfair but, if you are a household or individual making it on your own with little or no state support, this policy should worry you profoundly.
It has nothing to do with adding VAT to school fees; it has everything to do with Labour showing their hand that they are still the party of spite and envy politics; they are still the party that will put dogma over good fiscal sense; they are still the party that believe that they should have more authority over your money and your life than you.
Bridget Phillips on and Rachel Reeves are both highly intelligent people. They know full well that, however you try to argue it, the maths doesn't stack up on this one. They do know, however, that envy politics plays well with a big chunk of their core vote and placated the Corbynite headbangers in the PLP. They have alighted on this policy to trumpet because its a 'safe space' to indicate that the same old La bour shark is very much in the water - a big impact but felt by a very small number of people, a large proportion of whom were never going to vote Labour anyway.
I urge floating voters not to be taken in; here is a party that want your money and will trash your standard of living and financial security to get it.
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Sunday 7th April 12:38
ClaphamGT3 said:
Any floating voter considering voting Labour in the next election should look at this policy and be warned.
You may not have children, you may not have children at private school, you may not ever be able to afford private education, you may even think private schooling is elitist and unfair but, if you are a household or individual making it on your own with little or no state support, this policy should worry you profoundly.
It has nothing to do with adding VAT to school fees; it has everything to do with Labour showing their hand that they are still the party of spite and envy politics; they are still the party that will put dogma over good fiscal sense; they are still the party that believe that they should have more authority over your monet and your life than you.
Bridget Phillips on and Rachel Reeves are both highly intelligent people. They know full well that, however you try to argue it, the maths doesn't stack up on this one. They do know, however, that envy politics plays well with a big chunk of their core vote and placated the Corbynite headbangers in the PLP. They have alighted on this policy to trumpet because its a 'safe space' to indicate that the same old La bour shark is very much in the water - a big impact but felt by a very small number of people, a large proportion of whom were never going to vote Labour anyway.
I urge floating voters not to be taken in; here is a party that want your money and will trash your standard of living and financial security to get it.
Without wishing to disrupt the thread too much I think you’re right. What worries me is the selective very short term memories so many people have. Everyone seems to forget the ‘no money left’ note left for the incoming coalition after the labour years of spend spend spend. Brown selling the gold reserves for a pittance, Blair and Brown signing up PFI schemes shrouded in secrecy. I read only last week about a school that has to pay £30k a year to have their sports pitch grass cut under a PFI arrangement, which has led them to cut teaching staff to pay it. And theres that school in Ni that costs taxpayers £2m a year iirc, built under a PFI scheme, and its never opened. I think that those who think they will be unaffected by this vat on fees policy will get a rude awakening when state school classes further expand and educational standards drop further, if our future generations are not well educated then the country is in trouble. Reeves is making statements I struggle to reconcile with reality. One of her ‘fiscal rules’ (remember Brown and his, which he changed to suit the agenda) is not to borrow any money for day to day spending yet the last year current deficit was £87 billion, so along with her pledge of no rises to income or corporation tax where is the money going to come from? Like all GE manifestos, it’ll all be dropped for ‘plan b’ the day after they get into power. Back to Rayner, Lammy was defending her on the bbc this morning questioning why she is still under scrutiny about her tax affairs, well David, she comes across as a nasty, spiteful individual, people dont like hypocrites, thats why.You may not have children, you may not have children at private school, you may not ever be able to afford private education, you may even think private schooling is elitist and unfair but, if you are a household or individual making it on your own with little or no state support, this policy should worry you profoundly.
It has nothing to do with adding VAT to school fees; it has everything to do with Labour showing their hand that they are still the party of spite and envy politics; they are still the party that will put dogma over good fiscal sense; they are still the party that believe that they should have more authority over your monet and your life than you.
Bridget Phillips on and Rachel Reeves are both highly intelligent people. They know full well that, however you try to argue it, the maths doesn't stack up on this one. They do know, however, that envy politics plays well with a big chunk of their core vote and placated the Corbynite headbangers in the PLP. They have alighted on this policy to trumpet because its a 'safe space' to indicate that the same old La bour shark is very much in the water - a big impact but felt by a very small number of people, a large proportion of whom were never going to vote Labour anyway.
I urge floating voters not to be taken in; here is a party that want your money and will trash your standard of living and financial security to get it.
M1AGM said:
Back to Rayner, Lammy was defending her on the bbc this morning questioning why she is still under scrutiny about her tax affairs, well David, she comes across as a nasty, spiteful individual, people dont like hypocrites, thats why.
The prospect of Rayner being #2 in a post GE government is an awful prospect. If something happened to Starmer, she could be PM and have her finger on the button. All whilst Russia has been more than sabre rattling. I don't see her as a credible states person.It may well be democratic if Labour get in. My concern is..who/what are the alternative to Labour? I don't like the way the country is heading, and yes, that may make me sound like a grumpy old bustard of a certain age, but it's how I feel. Adding VAT to school fees is morally wrong, I see no motivation for it other than old fashioned political spite.
u-boat said:
Angela Rayner raised this at a labour conference years ago and even said she wanted to assimilate private school assets into the state but it was unpopular and dropped. This ain’t popular either and isn’t a good policy. It won’t help anything and is actually likely to exacerbate the issues in state schools with overcrowding not improve them.
No suprise there as she does not have any qualification at all, and trying to change tax policies with simpleton 'static' estimates. Even the most experienced tax policy experts are aware that these static calculations do not mean anything, behavioural changes are more important and they do need to be calculated with different scenarios to observe overall impacts but not sure if she is even aware differential equations would be needed for such complex(and unimaginative) policies...I mentioned previously, as one result, people can simply move out of U.K., it's a very underestimated possibility. One can simply see what has been happening in Portgual and Spain, full of British families already living there for all sorts of different reasons.
u-boat said:
TUS373 said:
Rayner's maths is limited to what she learned when she was at school.
1+1=3
Non-Diophantine arithmetic Involving synergy and a combination of factors equal more than the sum of the parts? 1+1=3
She had a kid when she was at school.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff