[Politics] Loony labour vote to abolish private education

[Westdene Seagull]

I suppose it's whether you view buying a house or car as exactly the same as buying an education.

I do - if my child's education costs say £500 a month and that otherwise I could use that to upgrade my house to a bigger and better one then it's my choice which option I take with MY money.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I do - if my child's education costs say £500 a month and that otherwise I could use that to upgrade my house to a bigger and better one then it's my choice which option I take with MY money.

Okay, so if you agree with it being a commodity in the same sense as a house or car, then it should be taxed the same, VAT applied, no charity status etc. There should be no funding at all from the public purse, and no tax breaks. That is what you have just stated basically.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Don't forget Abbott.

Silly me.

I can only apologise. I'll have to put it down due it being Monday morning, because unfortunately I had actually forgot about her, because unlike you I'm not literally obsessed about a black woman in her 60's.

 

[Arthur]

I suppose it's whether you view buying a house or car as exactly the same as buying an education.

Surely that is just life though?

If you have more money you'll have a bigger house, nicer holidays, better cars why shouldn't people be able to pay for a better education for their kids?

Should someone sitting in the North Stand pay the same as someone sat in 1901?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

But you didn't differentiate between 'property derived wealth' and 'earned wealth' in your original post. Just anything over £50k should be 100% taxed.

Good point. The reality is that hardly anyone leaves more than £50K that has not come from property. But, you are right that the distinction is important in order to retain the incentive for people to work hard, innovate and create wealth through industry/commerce in small, medium and large businesses.

My ideal regime would be 100% IHT after £50K on all of the standard property inheritances. And then something like 50% IHT over £300K for people who had actually worked hard, generated wealth and created jobs in the economy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Okay, so if you agree with it being a commodity in the same sense as a house or car, then it should be taxed the same, VAT applied, no charity status etc. There should be no funding at all from the public purse, and no tax breaks. That is what you have just stated basically.

And I'd agree with that policy. I don't agree with forcibly shutting down private schools and removing their assets.

 

[Simster]

I think it's actually a very complex issue.

I believe the very elite pubic schools really are there to act as a little club to preserve the ruling classes. They don't serve much of a purpose beyond that, and there are many affordable private schools that I suspect offer education levels and class sizes that are comparable, but without the same extravagant fees. But how do we rid ourselves of this self-preservation of the ruling classes whilst preserving basic freedom of choice? Ban the lot? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my view.

My feeling is that this country is not ready to ban public & private schools until we get state education to the point where class sizes of 20 are the norm, and school facilities (sports and arts as well as academic facilities) are up to scratch. They are in many places, but the problem with state education (along with state hospitals, state dental provision, doctors and various other things) is that they are hit and miss and a complete lottery depending on where you live. If you live in an area where you consider state education not good enough for your kids, then you're going to consider the private route and I don't think that is something that should be taken away.

One thing I passionately agree with is what one guy said on page one - private education absolutely should not be given tax breaks. If you can afford to make that educational choice, you can afford to pay your taxes.

 

[beorhthelm]

Good point. The reality is that hardly anyone leaves more than £50K that has not come from property. But, you are right that the distinction is important in order to retain the incentive for people to work hard, innovate and create wealth through industry/commerce in small, medium and large businesses.

My ideal regime would be 100% IHT after £50K on all of the standard property inheritances. And then something like 50% IHT over £300K for people who had actually worked hard, generated wealth and created jobs in the economy.

are you ok if this means business have to be sold or broken up?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Silly me.

I can only apologise. I'll have to put it down due it being Monday morning, because unfortunately I had actually forgot about her, because unlike you I'm not literally obsessed about a black woman in her 60's.

Not necessarily obsessed. Just merely inquisitive as to how the wonderful lady can back such a policy having tried to send her son to a fee paying school.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My ideal regime would be 100% IHT after £50K on all of the standard property inheritances. And then something like 50% IHT over £300K for people who had actually worked hard, generated wealth and created jobs in the economy.

Easily got round though. I would sell my house to an equity release scheme - thus turning it into cash. Given my house is worth about £450k that would allow me to give my three children £150k each when I died and thus avoid your property tax ( I accept I'd get less than £450k in that kind of scheme but I'd rather lose some money than deprive my children of money that the government would otherwise take ).

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Easily got round though. I would sell my house to an equity release scheme - thus turning it into cash. Given my house is worth about £450k that would allow me to give my three children £150k each when I died and thus avoid your property tax ( I accept I'd get less than £450k in that kind of scheme but I'd rather lose some money than deprive my children of money that the government would otherwise take ).

These sort of "schemes" would not be allowed to exist in Moshe-land.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Surely that is just life though?

If you have more money you'll have a bigger house, nicer holidays, better cars why shouldn't people be able to pay for a better education for their kids?

Should someone sitting in the North Stand pay the same as someone sat in 1901?

So why don't you pay VAT on school fees?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

are you ok if this means business have to be sold or broken up?

Good point (I presume - not knowing anything about how businesses are sold or broken up...). I am not OK at all with anything that would hurt the economy and lead to there being fewer good jobs and less money available for public services.

A new way of doing things would need to evolve that worked within the new parameters. One point I guess would be that successful enterprises would be likely to continue, or re-emerge, under new ownership if they had to be sold off rather than passed on in-tact...?

 

[Arthur]

So why don't you pay VAT on school fees?

I had no idea you didn't to be honest but not sure what that has got to do with anything?

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Let’s drag everything down to the lowest common denominator and see where that gets us.

 

[BLOCK F]

The key for me is driving towards equality of opportunity. I would equate the way Labour is dealing with this issue in education to a bit like you would a knee injury. The injured (failing) schools need greater support to recover. The suggestion to damage the other knee which is strong and working well isn't the answer.
As per Moshe/Raleigh, tackling inherited wealth more effectively would go some way to re-dressing the balance.

Hmm, ' tackling inherited wealth etc.'
Well, most people aren't out and out wealthy. There are some very rich people,and some rich people. Most people fall between being comfortably off to managing.
How would you decide where to put down the marker on judging inherited wealth? What would be fair and what would be punitive in your redressing of the balance, if you consider that inherited wealth is such a terrible problem in this country?
It is for most people, the most natural thing in the world to want to help their children in any way they can, no matter what means the parents have, whether they be well off or not. People do this in different ways, they may scrimp and scrape to send their children to private school, they may pay for them to have private tuition if they are struggling in a particular subject and at the other end of the scale, they may go without themselves to afford things for their kids that they never had And ,of course, there are plenty of other examples.......
If you clobber the general population with very heavy inheritance tax regime, you are really in danger of skewing all kinds of aspirations, freedoms and behaviour of many , many people and all for what?
Hey says comfortably off Fred, I'm 70 odd years old now, I've worked hard for my dosh but I can't leave it to my kids because the ******* Government want to take yet more dosh off me even though I have paid all my taxes during my working life. What shall I do? Well, let us go on a massive spending spree, world cruises, live like millionaires (although Fred isn't one), piss it up and generally squander it, just so the ******* Government can't get their hands on it!
Blimey, after all that high living, Fred has a serious stroke and needs care and/or a nursing home. He can't pay for it now, but, not to worry, the ******* Government can pay!
Who does that benefit?
I may be a little tongue in cheek, but the point I am making is that by removing the ability for many people, of unexceptional means, to help their children, you will be taking away the choice for them to do as they wish with the money they have honestly accumulated; and that, as a Government, you do at your peril.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

This policy sounds like a vote winner..... for the LibDems.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Let’s drag everything down to the lowest common denominator and see where that gets us.

A step change upwards in the quality of education for 93% of the population would get us a long way in a good direction.

 

[beorhthelm]

So why don't you pay VAT on school fees?

because we exempt VAT on education services. its not worth arguing to protect private schools from tax, but we should at least acknowledge there will be either more complex tax, collateral damage from tax or both (usually the case). what we're saying is education should be taxed and i think charities are in the frame too.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think it's actually a very complex issue.

I believe the very elite pubic schools really are there to act as a little club to preserve the ruling classes. They don't serve much of a purpose beyond that, and there are many affordable private schools that I suspect offer education levels and class sizes that are comparable, but without the same extravagant fees. But how do we rid ourselves of this self-preservation of the ruling classes whilst preserving basic freedom of choice? Ban the lot? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my view.

My feeling is that this country is not ready to ban public & private schools until we get state education to the point where class sizes of 20 are the norm, and school facilities (sports and arts as well as academic facilities) are up to scratch. They are in many places, but the problem with state education (along with state hospitals, state dental provision, doctors and various other things) is that they are hit and miss and a complete lottery depending on where you live. If you live in an area where you consider state education not good enough for your kids, then you're going to consider the private route and I don't think that is something that should be taken away.

One thing I passionately agree with is what one guy said on page one - private education absolutely should not be given tax breaks. If you can afford to make that educational choice, you can afford to pay your taxes.

It's a leap they might not vote for in conference either, but the debate is to be had, and the examples such as the excellent education in the likes of Finland - for all kids proves.

You've kind of put the answer forward without committing to it, and that is a fully fund state education system that provides all schools that are up to scratch. You've not gone as far as to say that is an affordable ideology, and instead accept some schools might be a bit crap so parents should have the choice. But why? Why not say we should have a fully funded education that doesn't just benefit kids, it benefits all of us if children come out of school ready to contribute to society.

We're simply terrified of public spending and public projects. Especially over to Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia and Germany, these ideas of funding transformation of towns and cities, funding of health and education - they're not seem as some kind of socialist idealism, they just considered good governance.