torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Which is why they are scrapping tax breaks on private education fees. The extra income generated will - so they tell us - be invested in state schools.
Which is why they are scrapping tax breaks on private education fees. The extra income generated will - so they tell us - be invested in state schools.People send their children to private school in large part because they’ll get better quality teaching in better facilities and generally smaller class sizes.
So if the government really gave a shit it would commit to making that more of a reality in the state sector.
The answer is to fund all schools and the health service, and indeed all public services properly. That's what we should be seeking from our politicians. Of course that means paying more tax, but most people are better off in those circumstances and society is fairer and works better. Crime is lower in more equal societies too. But we have a narrow minded view about tax in this country and we have useless politicians as a result who concentrate on the wrong things like promising austerity and tax cuts rather than delivering improvements.
There’s no reason why it couldn’t be done.Which is all nice in the fairytale "what if" world.
Exactly. That’s why there are people out there criticising the policy because people will drop out from the private sector and the state sector will pick up the burden.
If the state sector is understaffed, underfunded and overcrowded, the last thing you want to do is push people from the private sector to the state sector.
It might sound counterintuitive, but it’s a moment in time where you probably want to incentivise the private sector for education and healthcare.
Which is why they are scrapping tax breaks on private education fees. The extra income generated will - so they tell us - be invested in state schools.
There’s no reason why it couldn’t be done.
There’s no reason why it couldn’t be done.
I’m sure if ‘just fund them properly’ was the solution, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Even Labour in 2024 and back in 1997 the NHS cannot survive if government just constantly need to throw more and more money at it.
The private sector and NHS can coexist. The countries that outperform us, there is much higher proportions of independent healthcare providers. Start by removing VAT on private health insurance to and even consider incentives to employers, self-employed and/or young people. Why? Make PHI more affordable, reduce the amount of people that need to use NHS services. It’s not a silver bullet solution, but it reduces the amount of people that need to use the service.
Getting required medical attention is a necessity not a luxury.What next? Somebody paying to have a filling at a dentist because they can't get in with the NHS one?
I am sure they will be paying the same taxes as everybody else.
Plenty of countries do it.There’s no reason why it couldn’t be done.
Find me one teacher who thinks adding upper middle class kids with parents committed to education to their school is a burden.
Getting required medical attention is a necessity not a luxury.
You can froth all you like but private education is a luxury.
Sounds like you need to go private.Again, no issues with the teacher because they openly said they would love to spend all their time with kids like her but they can't. Meanwhile, my daughter wasn't getting an education.
Of course it is. Socialism for the wealthiest.… The VAT exemption is a tax break?
I get why rich people want low taxes which forces poor people to pay for what should be public services, as it maintains the privilege and inequality we have. However, make no mistake it makes no sense for poorer people. A proper tax system funding good quality public services is far more beneficial to society as a whole than private sector involvement.Which is all nice in the fairytale "what if" world.
And what is the first thing cut to the bone? Public services.I get why rich people want low taxes and for poor people to pay for what should be public services as it maintains the privilege and inequality we have. However, make no mistake it makes no sense for poorer people. A proper tax system funding good quality public services is far more beneficial to society as a whole than private sector involvement.
Sounds like you need to go private. By "naughty" kids do you mean SEND?
But that’s not the reality with schooling. People using private education are not doing it because their child is going to miss the start of term in state education if they don’t. Fair play to anyone willing to do it just don’t expect everyone else to subsidise the luxury with a tax break.Oh I agree, it should be a necessity. Whinging about it isn't going to get shit done when needed, though, is it?
Saying I've hurt my knee and whinging about Sunak because waiting times for physio are months and I can't get in the GP isn't going to do anything. I will have to go and pay for a physio to get it sorted.
That's just the reality.
I get why rich people want low taxes which forces poor people to pay for what should be public services, as it maintains the privilege and inequality we have. However, make no mistake it makes no sense for poorer people. A proper tax system funding good quality public services is far more beneficial to society as a whole than private sector involvement.
Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more tax, and very wealthy to pay much more tax, and you to have a good public school than have to pay private school fees?Again, it depends on the school and their resource. Not the teachers fault.
It's pretty much guaranteed that a naughty kid with no interest in education and their parent don't give a shit either will take up more resources and teacher time than the ones you mention.
One example I can think of is my daughter being in a class at primary school teaching other kids to read because the teacher was spending all of their time with the naughty kids and a couple of kids that couldn't speak English. She was also baffled that kids were getting rewarded for not being naughty for a week when she was good all the time and wasn't.
Again, no issues with the teacher because they openly said they would love to spend all their time with kids like her but they can't. Meanwhile, my daughter wasn't getting an education.
But that’s not the reality with schooling. People using private education are not doing it because their child is going to miss the start of term in state education if they don’t. Fair play to anyone willing to do it just don’t expect everyone else to subsidise the luxury with a tax break.
Wouldn't it be better to pay a bit more tax, and very wealthy to pay much more tax, and you to have a good public school than have to pay private school fees?
It could be if we demanded the right things from our politicians. Not all countries gave this toxic view of taxation and public services needing to be cut.Again, which is all well and good but in reality it isn't like that, is it?
It could be if we demanded the right things from our politicians. Not all countries gave this toxic view of taxation and public services needing to be cut.
But if we send our children to public schools we perpetuate the problem.Of course, I am talking about the reality of it though. Just dreaming about the scenario isn't going to give your kid an education or get you seen by a doctor quicker.
But that’s not the reality with schooling. People using private education are not doing it because their child is going to miss the start of term in state education if they don’t. Fair play to anyone willing to do it just don’t expect everyone else to subsidise the luxury with a tax break.
But if we send our children to public schools we perpetuate the problem.
It’s a tax break on a luxury item. By default that means it’s being subsidised by everyone else. It’s really not that difficult of a concept.A lot of people are doing it because they don't feel like their kids are getting pushed to their full potential at the other school options available to them.
I'm not sure everybody else is subsidising it though, are they? Especially when tax is still being paid the same as everybody else.
Again, it depends on the school and their resource. Not the teachers fault.
It's pretty much guaranteed that a naughty kid with no interest in education and their parent don't give a shit either will take up more resources and teacher time than the ones you mention.
One example I can think of is my daughter being in a class at primary school teaching other kids to read because the teacher was spending all of their time with the naughty kids and a couple of kids that couldn't speak English. She was also baffled that kids were getting rewarded for not being naughty for a week when she was good all the time and wasn't.
Again, no issues with the teacher because they openly said they would love to spend all their time with kids like her but they can't. Meanwhile, my daughter wasn't getting an education.
It’s a tax break on a luxury item. By default that means it’s being subsidised by everyone else. It’s really not that difficult of a concept.
Right. So you would also want more kids in your daughters class who are hard working with engaged parents? One of the many social goods that comes from universal education.
There’s huge problems to solve at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale for education. But let’s be honest those people spending £15k who are scrimping to get a kid into Henry’s would be better buying a house in Finham or wherever and sending them there. And that kid isn’t going to harm Finham, and the tax his slightly richer old schoolmates parents now pay means that everyone else gets a better education.
I don’t think encouraging the rich, who are already the least integrated group in society, to opt out entirely is good for anyone but the rich. And I don’t think you get a significantly better education in private as opposed to just hoping to meet some already rich people who will give you a leg up. And in that case we should make joining posh golf clubs tax free too.
I'd want my daughter to be pushed to her full potential and get the best she possibly could.
Surely people paying thousands more to live in a certain area for a school aren't much different? After all it's a luxury to live in Finham as opposed to Wood End (for example).
I'm pretty sure the school you worked in would have been an eye opener, I know when I worked in a school it was an eye opener. (This was before it was all academies and watched the council spend shit loads of unneeded money every week that could have gone to teachers).
The reality is even in the state system there is an element of privilege. People migrate into better areas to gain state schools that are better and they are generally middle class children.
I suspect there would not be as much embracing of socialist principles if it was a lottery which school you ended up in regardless of where you lived. So I’ve bought a posh house in Finham and my child is ending up in Grace Academy
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?