[Politics] Keir Starmer

[nicko31]

Reigate grammar had no fees when Starmer started there & although they introduced fees for some after that, he wasn't one of them.
But you knew that when you posted.

They're struggling for dirt on KS at the moment. Maybe time to bring back the donkey sanctuary field, could be a building plot one day story..

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The profit goes back into the charity to be spent on charitable purposes. It can't be taken out by any owners or shareholders.

So buying up green belt land is ok? Miles away from the actual school.

 

[dsr-burnley]

"Most private schools have charitable status, which means they are exempt from paying VAT on school fees."

I think school fees are exempt from VAT because provision of education is an exempt supply. Most private schools are charities, but I don't think they have to charge VAT even if they are profit-making.

 

[dsr-burnley]

So buying up green belt land is ok? Miles away from the actual school.

It's legal for charities to hold investments. I don't have an opinion over whether this is a sensible investment.

 

[BLOCK F]

I went to public school back in the dark ages and have absolutely no problem with the proposal that they should lose their charitable status. Already, the fees at my old prison, that were affordable for many middle earning parents back in the day, are now unaffordable to virtually all todays middle earners and are increasingly the preserve of the very wealthy. Yes, they offer a number of bursaries and scholarships and do some good works with local state schools, but I still find it hard to make a case for them to retain charitable status. I have to say that when I get approaches to make a donation towards the latest ‘ much needed building project’(aka vanity project) they get short shrift from me.
Bottom line is that the money saved/raised by abolishing charitable status is really pretty small beer, but that isn’t really the point for many.
Finally, now here’s an idea to save a nice few bob for the tax payer and restore some equality, let us abolish the unsustainable public sector pensions, including those of our MP’s and let them join the rest of us in having to depend on the fortunes of the stock market to fund their retirement. This would save a fortune as well as upset a few on here.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I went to public school back in the dark ages and have absolutely no problem with the proposal that they should lose their charitable status. Already, the fees at my old prison, that were affordable for many middle earning parents back in the day, are now unaffordable to virtually all todays middle earners and are increasingly the preserve of the very wealthy. Yes, they offer a number of bursaries and scholarships and do some good works with local state schools, but I still find it hard to make a case for them to retain charitable status. I have to say that when I get approaches to make a donation towards the latest ‘ much needed building project’(aka vanity project) they get short shrift from me.
Bottom line is that the money saved/raised by abolishing charitable status is really pretty small beer, but that isn’t really the point for many.
Finally, now here’s an idea to save a nice few bob for the tax payer and restore some equality, let us abolish the unsustainable public sector pensions, including those of our MP’s and let them join the rest of us in having to depend on the fortunes of the stock market to fund their retirement. This would save a fortune as well as upset a few on here.

I'm sure depending on the stock market for fire fighters will be gratefully accepted, as the rest of us don't risk our lives every day.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Absolute hogwash.

I know of many working class parents making massive personal financial sacrifices to send their child/children to an independent school. Prices going up 20% will force many normal folk out of the market.

I DO hope Sir Kneel enjoyed his spell at Reigate Grammar School.

Reigate FEES

Amusing that they use Chartwells for the catering based on experience!

 

[beorhthelm]

Finally, now here’s an idea to save a nice few bob for the tax payer and restore some equality, let us abolish the unsustainable public sector pensions, including those of our MP’s and let them join the rest of us in having to depend on the fortunes of the stock market to fund their retirement. This would save a fortune as well as upset a few on here.

cant begrudge them the pensions they've already gained. a better plan would be to allow public sector employees to chose to have some of the large employer contribution as salary. would focus some minds on what their total renumeration is.

and on this subject, getting rid of higher rate pension relief would be very meaningful addition to public finances, many times more than VAT on private schools. how silly it is to subsidise high earner's in this way, doesn't get talked about.

 

[BLOCK F]

cant begrudge them the pensions they've already gained. a better plan would be to allow public sector employees to chose to have some of the large employer contribution as salary. would focus some minds on what their total renumeration is.

and on this subject, getting rid of higher rate pension relief would be very meaningful addition to public finances, many times more than VAT on private schools. how silly it is to subsidise high earner's in this way, doesn't get talked about.

No, you can’t change what has already been paid into, but I do envisage a time when serious political discussion will have to be had re public sector pensions.

 

[Silverhatch]

so explain what would be the benefit of abolishing all private schools.

If there was no private school sector, and therefore no other choice, then state education provision would have to work for every child irrespective of an individual’s ability to pay for an opt out. The most vocal and financially able would demand it. The education secretary would become THE ministerial office overnight. It’ll never happen though because inequality is built into the private education system and a two-tier education system is a fundamental bedrock of the Establishment in this country.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What is hypocritical about sending your child private because local schools are crap?

It just doesn't sit right with me that she has at the same time spoken in favour of abolishing them.

I suppose it is no worse that campaigning for a ban on tobacco advertising while being a smoker.

So, on reflection, yes, if the local schools are crap, and you can afford private, and don't mind taking advantage of the dubious tax status of the private school, then why not? I'd not vote for you were you an MP, though. Especially (as she was at the time) an MP (backbench) in the party of government (Blair/Brown).

There is also an argument made by the left that when there are perfectly decent state schools available then it is sending a bad signal to opt for private. Bad signals aren't a massive big deal though.

So perhaps the only odd thing among all this is labour's professed plan to abolish private schools. Why bother if there is nothing wrong with them? Why not focus on making state schools better?

None of this detracts from the fact that the VAT subsidy and freedom from the national curriculum provided by the bogus charity status should be removed.

Likewise I am not bothered if people want to use 'alternative' medicines so long as they don't get them via the NHS or get some sort of taxpayer subsidy for using them.

 

[A1X]

But if we don't have Eton, how will we possibly have future generations of Old Etonians to screw everything up and filter money off their other ex-Etonian mates?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think school fees are exempt from VAT because provision of education is an exempt supply. Most private schools are charities, but I don't think they have to charge VAT even if they are profit-making.

It is much more than this. For example because most private schools have charitable status this gives them at least 80% relief on business rates. Additionally the returns on their investments are tax-free.

So Starmer is quite correct in his demands: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63806421

 

[Simster]

It just doesn't sit right with me that she has at the same time spoken in favour of abolishing them.

I suppose it is no worse that campaigning for a ban on tobacco advertising while being a smoker.

So, on reflection, yes, if the local schools are crap, and you can afford private, and don't mind taking advantage of the dubious tax status of the private school, then why not? I'd not vote for you were you an MP, though. Especially (as she was at the time) an MP (backbench) in the party of government (Blair/Brown).

There is also an argument made by the left that when there are perfectly decent state schools available then it is sending a bad signal to opt for private. Bad signals aren't a massive big deal though.

So perhaps the only odd thing among all this is labour's professed plan to abolish private schools. Why bother if there is nothing wrong with them? Why not focus on making state schools better?

None of this detracts from the fact that the VAT subsidy and freedom from the national curriculum provided by the bogus charity status should be removed.

Likewise I am not bothered if people want to use 'alternative' medicines so long as they don't get them via the NHS or get some sort of taxpayer subsidy for using them.

So now you're saying Abbot isn't a hypocrite, but despite being a Labour member you wouldn't vote for her.

Righto.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So now you're saying Abbot isn't a hypocrite, but despite being a Labour member you wouldn't vote for her.

Righto.

You seem to be in need of a black or white assessment.

OK, I think she is a hypocrite, but with a certain amount of mitigation given the choices she had.

I think she is a poor politician for not thinking through how it would appear and mitigating against this.

She is a Corbyn supporter and has publicly attempted to undermine Starmer so, no, I wouldn't vote for her (were I a voter in her constituency).

I find her contribution to Andrew Neill's programme some years ago, with her old school chum, quite entertaining.

If I were Starmer I would leave her firmly on the back benches.

Is that sufficiently clear?

 

[drew]

I went to state school, but I'm fortunate enough to be able to send my two children to private school. I am not against the end to charitable status for private schools, and neither am I in favour of it. I think it's a sign that Labour are on the side of the average person, but in reality it won't actually benefit anyone.

Firstly, the fees I pay (LOGS and Roedean) are nowhere near the £40k per child that I've seen mentioned here. Most schools have scholarships and bursaries and I am paying considerably less a year in total for both. Secondly, the reason these schools are charities is because of the work they do in the state sector - and there is regular contact with the parents about what they're doing in this area. In the need to cut costs due to the end of the charity status, these programmes will stop. So the full 20% won't be passed on to the parents, but state schools will suffer. Thirdly, once the Tories get back in power, they'll reduce education spending again - does anyone really trust them to pass on this alleged new funding into education?

Most importantly, private schools have this perception that they're all like Eton. This is utter nonsense of course. The vast majority of private schools are not elitist institutions funded by Toffs. Even at Roedean, the parents of my daughter's friends are mainly living in normal houses in suburban Brighton and Hove. Some don't own cars, most have two working parents. And for those who think private school kids don't mix with those in state school, you really have no idea. My kids do plenty of other activities outside of school, including volunteering, where they are friends with state school kids. Not to mention their cousins who they get on really well with.

You say the fees you pay are no where near the £40k quoted but a weekly boarder at Roedean is paying between £33k and £36k so not too far off. I'm guessing your kids are day pupils so of course that will be a lot cheaper.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Secondly, the reason these schools are charities is because of the work they do in the state sector - and there is regular contact with the parents about what they're doing in this area.

What work does Roedean do in the state sector?

 

[rogersix]

That depends on how you define a subsidy. I didn't pay VAT on my dinner today, but I wouldn't say it was subsidised. And I bet if VAT rose to 25%, there wouldn't be great approval for the government for increasing food subsidies by 5% across the board.

When it was the "tampon tax", the argument was that the government shouldn't be taxing women's sanitary products. They weren't suggesting that the products were on sale at normal prices and the women wanted subsidies. They wanted the abolition of the tax.

Absence of business rates sounds like a subsidy, though. How much is that?

are you going to miss this point as well?

 

[rogersix]

Yet one of the most left wing corbinite little red book carrier who is the most outspoken supporter of a class war, chose to send her child to a private school and when questioned as to why she did she said “ it was her choice and no one else’s” “ Hackney’s schools were appalling and not fit for her son”

“ I had to choose between my reputation, whatever reputation I have for consistency, and my son - and I chose my son.

"Obviously, inevitably, I have been very damaged by this. But as I say, I had to choose, in a way, between my own interests and my son's interests.”

Dianne Abbott

so one rule for one!

so what's your point, exactly?

 

[sparkie]

I pay £1K per month for my daughter's school. Must admit I'm not enthused by it going up an additional £200 per month in 2 years+ time, but them's the breaks I suppose.

Fingers crossed fuel will have gone down by then, and there is a cost of living dividend from Putin's misadventure being over. Might even have had an unlikely pay rise, I suppose.