Keir Starmer

pirate said:
its progressive as it taxes the rich, those in the 7% who are rich enough to send their kids to private schools.
and in fact it only taxes them if the private schools choose to pass the tax increase on
Click to expand...

By definition it’s regressive not progressive, it makes no distinction between someone earning £40k, £100k or £1m. I believe it lacks fairness (our tax system should be fair) as only a small section of society will, on average, pay the £3k more in tax to fund state education irrespective of their income. Both a fair and progressive solution would be to raise more funds from those in the top tax band to increase state education funding. That would raise far more funds and allow the government to do it properly.

I can’t get away from it being ideologically driven gesture politics which I thought we’d had enough of! Country before party? On this evidence? Nah.
 
BobKowalski said:
Oh, I don’t know. I can see you being tempted to vote Tory out of concern of a Labour ‘supermajority’ - otherwise known as ‘a lot more seats’ - to ensure a strong opposition and in the interests of democracy.

But then I’m bit of a cynic.
Click to expand...

You don’t know me so that’s just made up nonsense. Like most of the shit you post in all honesty.
 
metalblue said:
You said:

The private schools wants the brightest kids, not because they want to make a difference to society. They want them because having bright kids pushes up the standards of everyone, and brings up their exam results, helping them attract more rich kids.

I assumed you meant profit.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit

Correct. I was waiting for someone to twig they don’t make profit but put it back in to the school.

Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.

Anyway why do you think having the brightest achieve their full potential is bad for the state system? What do you think more likely…that bright kids lift the class or the kids that fuck around drag the bright kids down?
Click to expand...

A lot make a lot of money, it’s just that they then have to deploy that into the school or elsewhere - some expand their footprint including overseas.

It’s the main thing I haven’t liked about the reporting around the private schools - the assumption that they’ll all just pass the cost on to the fee payers. They don’t have to, plenty could choose to swallow it themselves, they’ve raised prices themselves over the last decade but that hasn’t created the furore, despite pricing out far more people themselves already.

Might mean the new swimming pool might have to wait or the extension to Singapore but when we’ve got a state education sector where schools are having their real budgets cut and curriculums are narrowing, I find it a policy that’s very hard to argue against.

I agree with everything Sam Friedmans written about them.
 
meltonblue said:
A lot make a lot of money, it’s just that they then have to deploy that into the school or elsewhere - some expand their footprint including overseas.

It’s the main thing I haven’t liked about the reporting around the private schools - the assumption that they’ll all just pass the cost on to the fee payers. They don’t have to, plenty could choose to swallow it themselves, they’ve raised prices themselves over the last decade but that hasn’t created the furore, despite pricing out far more people themselves already.

Might mean the new swimming pool might have to wait or the extension to Singapore but when we’ve got a state education sector where schools are having their real budgets cut and curriculums are narrowing, I find it a policy that’s very hard to argue against.

I agree with everything Sam Friedmans written about them.
Click to expand...

That footprint isn’t about opening schools overseas but having campuses to attract students to the UK for education - that’s a good thing as it brings foreign money in to UK. Certainly not something to be sniffed at.

The schools themselves will certainly wear some of the 20% as they will be able to offset their existing costs which they cannot do today. They are under no obligation to apply it to fees and I imagine will look very carefully at not adding it to kids in their final year and those in 6th form. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that fees increasing over a decade versus going up by double digit % in a single hit is very different.

Regarding Sam Friedmans he also states how great state schools are and how they’d have no issue absorbing kids from private schools - that’s at odds with labour’s justification for this .. saying sometimes kids are taught math by the PE teacher so he’s either chatting shit or Starmer is. Which one is it??

Anyway it already looks like it’s been booted in to 2025 and I suspect will get forgotten about as they are talking about making SEND kids with EHCP exempt from the VAT. Good luck getting that to not be discriminatory unless you create an entirely new type of school for those kids and exempt them that way. They tried this approach of excluding certain people from thresholds with pensions and doctors and had to back track on that one- this already looks a cluster fuck likely to go the same way.
 
metalblue said:
By definition it’s regressive not progressive, it makes no distinction between someone earning £40k, £100k or £1m. I believe it lacks fairness (our tax system should be fair) as only a small section of society will, on average, pay the £3k more in tax to fund state education irrespective of their income. Both a fair and progressive solution would be to raise more funds from those in the top tax band to increase state education funding. That would raise far more funds and allow the government to do it properly.

I can’t get away from it being ideologically driven gesture politics which I thought we’d had enough of! Country before party? On this evidence? Nah.
Click to expand...
it does broadly differenciate on wealth

a person on 40K cant afford school fees of even the cheapest fee paying school (that's 15K per year if you are looking at Stockport Grammer for example)
a person on 60K also would struggle
a person on 80K could do it if they only have 1 child
a person on 100k could struggle to send 2 children etc etc

why is it gesture politics? its taxing the wealthy to redistribute to the rest of society.
that's basic socialist doctrine.
 
metalblue said:
You don’t know me so that’s just made up nonsense. Like most of the shit you post in all honesty.
Click to expand...

I know you as the man who consistently makes the wrong choice when it comes to voting day. If there is a bad option that will guarantee a bad outcome you will vote for the fucker. Every time. It’s almost a gift.
 
pirate said:
it does broadly differenciate on wealth

a person on 40K cant afford school fees of even the cheapest fee paying school (that's 15K per year if you are looking at Stockport Grammer for example)
a person on 60K also would struggle
a person on 80K could do it if they only have 1 child
a person on 100k could struggle to send 2 children etc etc

why is it gesture politics? its taxing the wealthy to redistribute to the rest of society.
that's basic socialist doctrine.
Click to expand...

A person can afford it on £40k if they have a partner on a similar salary. It depends what sacrifices they are prepared to make, like fucking off sky tv ;)

It’s gesture politics because it’s singling out private schools and it will barely raise £500m or so. Seriously what good is that going to do to our state system? Tax the wealthy and fix our education system properly - which I agree is underfunded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.