This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
palace99 ![]() |
|
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You are dressing this up as 'fairness'. Pretending that somehow VAT on private education is all about the greater good. Utter crap. It's all about ideology from a party who will never change from being jealous hypocritical lefties. Debate that. Fairness? How much have the Tories clawed back in tax evasion? Why was Prince William's best mate (the Duke of Westminster) allowed to inherit his dad's £8bn estate without paying a penny in inheritance tax?? Why do we have capital gains tax levels that are lower than income tax equivalents benefitting the richest in society? None of these seem fair to me but the Tories seem happy to allow all of these to prosper
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by palace99
Fairness? How much have the Tories clawed back in tax evasion? Why was Prince William's best mate (the Duke of Westminster) allowed to inherit his dad's £8bn estate without paying a penny in inheritance tax?? Why do we have capital gains tax levels that are lower than income tax equivalents benefitting the richest in society? None of these seem fair to me but the Tories seem happy to allow all of these to prosper I am 100% in favour of making the genuinely rich pay more into society.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You are dressing this up as 'fairness'. Pretending that somehow VAT on private education is all about the greater good. Utter crap. It's all about ideology from a party who will never change from being jealous hypocritical lefties. Debate that. Sure, happy to try - maybe you can answer one of the many questions I've put to you at some point. From the above and your inability to offer any actual reason the existing policy makes sense, it's very clear this is about your dislike of Labour as opposed to anything else. It very evidently is about fairness - it's about the taxpayer subsidising some of the wealthiest in society who are benefitting from a luxury - I'm not sure how that can be considered anything but unfair. If private schools were paying VAT currently, and a party suggested they'd like to introduce a policy where the country forgoes a reasonable amount of tax revenue in order to discount these costs for the rich, it would rightly be laughed out of the door within minutes, whichever party proposed it. Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (17 Jun 2024 1.33pm)
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Sure, happy to try - maybe you can answer one of the many questions I've put to you at some point. From the above and your inability to offer any actual reason the existing policy makes sense, it's very clear this is about your dislike of Labour as opposed to anything else. It very evidently is about fairness - it's about the taxpayer subsidising some of the wealthiest in society who are benefitting from a luxury - I'm not sure how that can be considered anything but unfair. If private schools were paying VAT currently, and a party suggested they'd like to introduce a policy where the country forgoes a reasonable amount of tax revenue in order to discount these costs for the rich, it would rightly be laughed out of the door within minutes, whichever party proposed it. Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (17 Jun 2024 1.33pm) I may be ignorant about this, but why is the Taxpayer subsidising The rich with regard to private schools? they charge fees and are not funded by the Government? Interesting that ReformUks stance is to actively encourage the use of private schools - by making them more affordable to more people - in the hope that more children use them, reducing the strain On the StateFunded 'free' schools. I'm all up for charging the rich more tax, and on the surface VAT on a 'luxury' like a private school appears a good idea, but not if RefromUk are right and it just ends up flooding our grammer schools. the VAT increase will just get swallowed up building more schools and hiring and Training More teachers
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by CrazyBadger
I may be ignorant about this, but why is the Taxpayer subsidising The rich with regard to private schools? they charge fees and are not funded by the Government? Interesting that ReformUks stance is to actively encourage the use of private schools - by making them more affordable to more people - in the hope that more children use them, reducing the strain On the StateFunded 'free' schools. I'm all up for charging the rich more tax, and on the surface VAT on a 'luxury' like a private school appears a good idea, but not if RefromUk are right and it just ends up flooding our grammer schools. the VAT increase will just get swallowed up building more schools and hiring and Training More teachers As in we offer them a tax-break, so it's money out of the public purse. As I said previously on this thread, I think the 'flooding state schools' argument is a complete red herring and I don't think you'd see anything close to a flood. If the VAT increase is swallowed up improving the state school offering, that doesn't sound like a bad use of it at all.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
As in we offer them a tax-break, so it's money out of the public purse. As I said previously on this thread, I think the 'flooding state schools' argument is a complete red herring and I don't think you'd see anything close to a flood. If the VAT increase is swallowed up improving the state school offering, that doesn't sound like a bad use of it at all. A tax break? This is adding VAT to that which was previously VAT exempt, like many other non luxury items. Unless you think that education is a luxury? I should also remind you that it was your precious Labour who destroyed the grammar school system, thus making a higher quality of education less available for those blessed with academic ability. This caused a lowering of standards. The same old story under Labour.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
A tax break? This is adding VAT to that which was previously VAT exempt, like many other non luxury items. Unless you think that education is a luxury? I should also remind you that it was your precious Labour who destroyed the grammar school system, thus making a higher quality of education less available for those blessed with academic ability. This caused a lowering of standards. The same old story under Labour.
So, no you still won't answer a question and no, you still can't explain why the current policy makes sense. I never had you down as a boot-licker Hrolf.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Sure, happy to try - maybe you can answer one of the many questions I've put to you at some point. From the above and your inability to offer any actual reason the existing policy makes sense, it's very clear this is about your dislike of Labour as opposed to anything else. It very evidently is about fairness - it's about the taxpayer subsidising some of the wealthiest in society who are benefitting from a luxury - I'm not sure how that can be considered anything but unfair. If private schools were paying VAT currently, and a party suggested they'd like to introduce a policy where the country forgoes a reasonable amount of tax revenue in order to discount these costs for the rich, it would rightly be laughed out of the door within minutes, whichever party proposed it. Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (17 Jun 2024 1.33pm) Yep. It's always been questionable IMO that private schools are mainly charities and therefore exempt from VAT, plus a whole host of other benefits. So in that regard, probably about time. Choosing to send your kids to private school is a lifestyle choice. Any bleating about how unfair it is to suddenly be having to pay VAT is insane. If your kids have to move as a result, so be it. It's the risk you take – fees go up over time. The brightest kids will be on discounted scholarships anyway so it is survival of the fittest, and richest in action within the private school bubble, so in that sense it is mildly amusing that there are cries of 'unfair' across the parental demographic. All that said, I'm not massively keen on the current implementation of this policy as reading around it seems that the net benefit to the state system will be about the same as if it hadn't been implemented at all. There is also the other issue that some private schools may decide to pull out of facilities sharing with other state schools and reduce bursary places as a result. In other words begin to burn bridges with the state system that are currently very beneficial and advantageous to the government. There is also no doubt that there will be more pressure put on the state system through kids either leaving or parents deciding they can't afford private education in the first place. This creates a displacement effect within state schools where kids who may have been in the middle of the pile now find themselves at the bottom. There is an argument to say that the funds generated will actually not be enough to cover the increased intake, but that's theory and we'll find out what actually happens when it happens. Final point – apparently some schools may choose to absorb some of the increase as there will be sweeteners elsewhere that they can make money back on. So yes, it is more ideological than practical, it could and should be implemented better, BUT it's probably about time private schools charity status was put under the lens. So on balance I'm for it.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
A tax break? This is adding VAT to that which was previously VAT exempt, like many other non luxury items. Unless you think that education is a luxury? I should also remind you that it was your precious Labour who destroyed the grammar school system, thus making a higher quality of education less available for those blessed with academic ability. This caused a lowering of standards. The same old story under Labour.
Private education is absolutely a luxury, yes. Not sure how you can argue against that credibly.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Yep. It's always been questionable IMO that private schools are mainly charities and therefore exempt from VAT, plus a whole host of other benefits. So in that regard, probably about time. Choosing to send your kids to private school is a lifestyle choice. Any bleating about how unfair it is to suddenly be having to pay VAT is insane. If your kids have to move as a result, so be it. It's the risk you take – fees go up over time. The brightest kids will be on discounted scholarships anyway so it is survival of the fittest, and richest in action within the private school bubble, so in that sense it is mildly amusing that there are cries of 'unfair' across the parental demographic. All that said, I'm not massively keen on the current implementation of this policy as reading around it seems that the net benefit to the state system will be about the same as if it hadn't been implemented at all. There is also the other issue that some private schools may decide to pull out of facilities sharing with other state schools and reduce bursary places as a result. In other words begin to burn bridges with the state system that are currently very beneficial and advantageous to the government. There is also no doubt that there will be more pressure put on the state system through kids either leaving or parents deciding they can't afford private education in the first place. This creates a displacement effect within state schools where kids who may have been in the middle of the pile now find themselves at the bottom. There is an argument to say that the funds generated will actually not be enough to cover the increased intake, but that's theory and we'll find out what actually happens when it happens. Final point – apparently some schools may choose to absorb some of the increase as there will be sweeteners elsewhere that they can make money back on. So yes, it is more ideological than practical, it could and should be implemented better, BUT it's probably about time private schools charity status was put under the lens. So on balance I'm for it. That's a reasonable summary which I would broadly agree with. I am still not convinced that the increased intake into state schools will be significant nor that the additional funds generated wouldn't cover it, but as you say, that's theory.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Private education is absolutely a luxury, yes. Not sure how you can argue against that credibly. I wouldn't call wanting a good standard of education a luxury. I'd say it is wanting what should be available for all for free. If education was of a higher standard, I don't suppose that many would want to shell out thousands of their hard earned money for their kid's schooling. Labour ruin everything they touch. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (17 Jun 2024 3.24pm)
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I wouldn't call wanting a good standard of education a luxury. I'd say it is wanting what should be available for all for free. If education was of a higher standard, I don't suppose that many would want to shell out thousands of their hard earned money for their kid's schooling. Labour ruin everything they touch. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (17 Jun 2024 3.24pm) Private education is a luxury. Fact. In reply to the different point you're making... A utopia where all state schools have the same facilities as the private sector and compete accordingly for parents attention is pure fantasy, even if the education system was properly funded this wouldn't happen. Amusing that there is a distinct socialist and or communist tinge to your musings. It would be great to pay teachers more and recruit more of them (and train them properly) as that would be the main route to improved standards. Any suggestion from Labour that the VAT increase will solve this is also fantasy... that's a big number, several orders of magnitude larger than 1.5bn. No party can afford that. Also the performance of grammar schools is way overstated if you actually look into how the system worked, and the irony is that they created a two tier selective system within the state system anyway, that had its fair share of problem creation. Instead of paying fees, parents that could afford it paid for private tutoring to get little middle class johnny in through the door. That plus being able to pay for a more expensive house to get closer to prime catchment areas. In other words, very similar to the private system vs state system now. The social mobility and educational accessibility argument with regard to grammars is totally flawed. Private schools, increased state funding or otherwise, ultimately those that earn more will always have better opportunities. Doesn't mean people shouldn't try to make the approach better, but solving it is a fantasy. The whole pining for grammar thing is mainly rose tinted nonsense. Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 3.46pm) Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 5.16pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.