FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The top 10 % of earners pay more than 50 % of all UK income tax
The top 10 % of earners pay more than 50 % of all UK income tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"This is down right false information. Firstly, the figure most commonly quoted to defend not taxing the rich is "The top 1% pay 30% for income tax revenues". This does not show the true picture. Following a study in 15/16, a quarter of those earning over £1M payed 45% tax, however 1 in 10 payed 11% tax which is the same amount as someone earning minumum wage. This also doesn't take into account that those who are earning a ridiculous amount of money are payed in shares or other ways which mean they pay even less tax. This doesn't even touch the surface of the filthy rich holding wealth in the form of property and capital. These people aren't ordinary, and taxing them isn't anti success. Most wealthy people fall into the latter category where they've been born into wealth. It isn'r a result of a successful career. They can afford to pay tax and live their lavish lifestyles, however they choose to avoid tax. What's the point in living in a country if you don't pay your fair share? You're never going to reach this level of wealth that these people have so it's laughable that you're defending not taxing them." . Re your last point most people like to consider what is beat for the country , not their own personal circumstances. If would be a bit pointless introducing higher tax rates if the end result is that you drive away those already paying tax and end up collecting less . Tony Blair probably had the foresight to see this. | |||
"This is down right false information. Firstly, the figure most commonly quoted to defend not taxing the rich is "The top 1% pay 30% for income tax revenues". This does not show the true picture. Following a study in 15/16, a quarter of those earning over £1M payed 45% tax, however 1 in 10 payed 11% tax which is the same amount as someone earning minumum wage. This also doesn't take into account that those who are earning a ridiculous amount of money are payed in shares or other ways which mean they pay even less tax. This doesn't even touch the surface of the filthy rich holding wealth in the form of property and capital. These people aren't ordinary, and taxing them isn't anti success. Most wealthy people fall into the latter category where they've been born into wealth. It isn'r a result of a successful career. They can afford to pay tax and live their lavish lifestyles, however they choose to avoid tax. What's the point in living in a country if you don't pay your fair share? You're never going to reach this level of wealth that these people have so it's laughable that you're defending not taxing them.. Re your last point most people like to consider what is beat for the country , not their own personal circumstances. If would be a bit pointless introducing higher tax rates if the end result is that you drive away those already paying tax and end up collecting less . Tony Blair probably had the foresight to see this. " Who would it ‘drive away’ be more specific | |||
". Re your last point most people like to consider what is beat for the country , not their own personal circumstances. . " Have you seen the documentary The Decade the Rich Won? Probably still on iplayer. Nick Clegg trying to get house building on the agenda and fighting the impending inequality that austerity was creating. He didn't say which of his coalition partner tories said "why do you bother, they don't vote for you?" But he did say it was said to him. Most people might consider what is best for the country as a whole, but those in power do not. | |||
| |||
"Labours policy as below and all firmly rejected by the electorate at the last general election . Corporation tax: Raise the main rate of corporation tax to 21% from April 2020, 24% from April 2021 and 26% from April 2022; reintroduce a small profits rate for firms with a turnover under £300,000 a year; keep the small profits rate at 19% from April 2020, rising to 20% from April 2021 and 21% from April 2021; introduce “unitary taxation of multinational corporations”: Labour will treat “corporate groups under common ownership as unitary enterprises, so that profits are declared where economic activity occurs and where value is created”. Income tax Introduce a new ‘super’ income tax rate of 50% on earnings of £125,000 and over; lower the threshold for the additional income tax rate of 45% from £150,000 to £80,000; basic and higher rate tax and NICs will not rise. Taxing income from wealth – capital gains: Capital gains will be taxed at marginal rates of income tax; the lower income tax rate for dividend income will be abolished; dividends will be taxed at marginal income tax rates; abolish the separate annual exempt allowance for capital gains and dividends (although there will be a de minimis threshold of £1,000); Entrepreneurs Relief will be abolished and there will be a consultation on an alternative; primary residences will continue to be exempt from capital gains. Financial transaction tax: SDRT to be extended to forex spot and derivatives trades, interest rate derivatives, and commodities spot and derivatives trades at 50% of transaction costs; a discount of one-third will apply to financial firms, because financial firms have lower transactions costs; an exemption will apply to interest rate derivatives under three months’ maturity (to avoid cashlike transactions), and for the first £1,000 of foreign exchange transactions daily per market participant; it is noted that the tax will not be based on where the trade is transacted, but on who is carrying out the transaction. Inclusive ownership fund: Large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds. Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund. The cap will rise to ensure that no more than 25% of dividends raised by IOFs are redistributed in this way. Windfall tax on oil companies Windfall tax on oil companies to be introduced. The tax will be used to pay for a “just transition fund” providing an £11bn support package to help retrain 37,000 workers in the industry to “make the transition to a clean economy”. Other: Review of corporate tax reliefs to be undertaken, with a target of reducing them by £4.3bn. The review will examine the reliefs for their effectiveness against their stated aims and compared with alternative policy measures to achieve these aims. It will also seek to ensure stronger transparency and accountability concerning the creation and maintenance of corporate tax reliefs. It will not include major structural reliefs such as the personal allowance. Avoidance and evasion: Labour will “enact the most comprehensive tax transparency and avoidance programme ever enacted in government. This will be a powerful package of legal reforms, resourcing changes, and government-wide reviews and inquiries – all with the aim of changing the culture that surrounds taxation, so that tax is viewed as a contribution and tax avoidance is not tolerated”. This will include measures to improve transparency, clamping down on enablers of tax avoidance and evasion as well as avoiders and evaders themselves, eliminating legal loopholes and focusing on cross-border action on avoidance and evasion. Bank levy: previous cuts to be reversed. Sugar tax: to be extended to milk drinks. IHT: previous cuts to be reversed. IHT could be replaced by a lifetime giving tax, effective at the income tax rate for assets worth over £125,000. Funding for R&D: R&D tax credits for large corporations and the Patent Box will be phased out over the Parliamentary term. The R&D tax relief SME scheme will be retained. Overseas companies buying housing: a new levy will be introduced. Private school fees: to be subject to VAT. Second homes tax: an annual levy on second homes that are used as holiday homes will be introduced, equivalent to 200% of the current council tax bill for the property. Property developers: a new ‘use it or lose it’ tax will be introduced on stalled housing developments. Business rates: the option of a land value tax on commercial landlords will be reviewed, as an alternative to business rates. No increases in VAT. A link to the manifesto, costings document and Review of Corporate Tax Relief document is here. Series of Policy Matters General Election webinars The upcoming UK General Election on 12 December 2019 may have a profound impact on the UK’s political, legal, and regulatory landscape. Topics in the series already available include i) Labour’s corporate governance and directors’ remuneration plans and (ii) Labour’s nationalisation policies. Topics to follow include i) energy policies; ii) General Election manifestos: key issues for business; and iii) tax policies. These already are or will become available for clients on our General Election webinars landing page here. Policy Matters blog In order to receive all our public facing analysis in relation to this General Election please subscribe to our new Policy Matters blog. Beyond the General Election this blog will bring together our ongoing analysis, across sectors, practices and jurisdictions, to assist clients as they navigate the pivotal area between business, politics and policymaking." Yep, the same policies that damn near won in 2017 if it wasn't for internal squabbling and prejudice. What is your point? | |||
| |||
"I'd be interested for the OP to address my point on Peter Mandelson and the taxation policies of New Labour." He won’t, he copies some guff from the Mail then never answers any questions on its content,  | |||
"I'd be interested for the OP to address my point on Peter Mandelson and the taxation policies of New Labour. He won’t, he copies some guff from the Mail then never answers any questions on its content, "Tbh I'm new round here, is this paid troll content? You see it on local forums on FB all the time, wouldn't have thought fab was influential enough to worth their time tho. | |||
"There is a very interesting article in the press today about how people became not just anti wealth but anti success . Part of the reason Blair won three elections (and remains the last Labour leader to win a general election) was his refusal to pander to left demands to soak the rich . A refusal to increase income tax was one of the cornerstones of Blairism . Winning three elections in a row was a great endorsement of Tony Blairs success . At election time I always look at what each party have to offer. He pulled my vote on at least one occasion . Maybe those who constantly whinge and want higher tax rates should review the success of Tony Blair . To win three elections in a row is quite an achievement . " The other 1% are clued up and pay next to no tax anywhere. | |||
"I'd be interested for the OP to address my point on Peter Mandelson and the taxation policies of New Labour. He won’t, he copies some guff from the Mail then never answers any questions on its content,
Tbh I'm new round here, is this paid troll content? You see it on local forums on FB all the time, wouldn't have thought fab was influential enough to worth their time tho."Not sure , I think it is a parody, drop a few ridiculous posts then sit back and watch the reaction | |||
"There is a very interesting article in the press today about how people became not just anti wealth but anti success . Part of the reason Blair won three elections (and remains the last Labour leader to win a general election) was his refusal to pander to left demands to soak the rich . A refusal to increase income tax was one of the cornerstones of Blairism . Winning three elections in a row was a great endorsement of Tony Blairs success . At election time I always look at what each party have to offer. He pulled my vote on at least one occasion . Maybe those who constantly whinge and want higher tax rates should review the success of Tony Blair . To win three elections in a row is quite an achievement . " Lolz! Comedy gold. | |||
| |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? " That's the point. The OP started the conversation about New Labour taxation, when it's a fact that the top 10% have had their taxes cut ever since they lost power. | |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? " . Typo. Great stat. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? That's the point. The OP started the conversation about New Labour taxation, when it's a fact that the top 10% have had their taxes cut ever since they lost power." I do agree with the OPs general point that the only way that the media, ultra rich and the corporations allowed Labour to be elected, is that they knew Labour would represent their interests as well as the Tories. | |||
 | |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? That's the point. The OP started the conversation about New Labour taxation, when it's a fact that the top 10% have had their taxes cut ever since they lost power. I do agree with the OPs general point that the only way that the media, ultra rich and the corporations allowed Labour to be elected, is that they knew Labour would represent their interests as well as the Tories." was that the point ? I missed that totally ! | |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? That's the point. The OP started the conversation about New Labour taxation, when it's a fact that the top 10% have had their taxes cut ever since they lost power. I do agree with the OPs general point that the only way that the media, ultra rich and the corporations allowed Labour to be elected, is that they knew Labour would represent their interests as well as the Tories.was that the point ? I missed that totally !" That's what I understood he was trying to say. New Labour were basically as shit as the Tories. | |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? That's the point. The OP started the conversation about New Labour taxation, when it's a fact that the top 10% have had their taxes cut ever since they lost power. I do agree with the OPs general point that the only way that the media, ultra rich and the corporations allowed Labour to be elected, is that they knew Labour would represent their interests as well as the Tories.was that the point ? I missed that totally ! That's what I understood he was trying to say. New Labour were basically as shit as the Tories." I read it as being the majority of voters don't like taxing the rich so only voted in labour when they said they wouldn't. It wasn't the clearest of posts tbh. | |||
"It's a great start. I wonder how much they earn versus the other 90pc Also worth noting it's earners. Distract from the asset rich old wealth types It is funny that the vast majority of people get hung up on taxing the wealthiest when it's only the top 10pc that are taking the vast amount if the burden. Should we reduce the bill on the 10pc and tax the rest more? That's the point. The OP started the conversation about New Labour taxation, when it's a fact that the top 10% have had their taxes cut ever since they lost power. I do agree with the OPs general point that the only way that the media, ultra rich and the corporations allowed Labour to be elected, is that they knew Labour would represent their interests as well as the Tories.was that the point ? I missed that totally ! That's what I understood he was trying to say. New Labour were basically as shit as the Tories.I read it as being the majority of voters don't like taxing the rich so only voted in labour when they said they wouldn't. It wasn't the clearest of posts tbh. " That's pretty much it. Only the OP likes to celebrate voters complying or being apathetic. | |||
| |||
"Where did you get your numbers from? I've found top 20pc as being c 60k https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021 " Got them from around four or five sites as they all presented differently but same end result . Not my figures | |||
| |||
"Where did you get your numbers from? I've found top 20pc as being c 60k https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021 Got them from around four or five sites as they all presented differently but same end result . Not my figures " can you link one? ONS seems a bit off versus these other sites. | |||
"Where did you get your numbers from? I've found top 20pc as being c 60k https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021 Got them from around four or five sites as they all presented differently but same end result . Not my figures can you link one? ONS seems a bit off versus these other sites. " Yes sure Only had three open on phone . I used 5 to balance it around the post . https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/22/factcheck-earning-80000-or-more-top-5-of-uk-earners-labour https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20092/how-much-pay-makes-you-a-top-earner-in-the-uk/ https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've now found a hmrc table that supports 80k. Will need to work out how the two seem so far off! Has made me realise how lucky I am And maybe I should vote Tory... Jk. Happy to "overpay" tax if it's for the common good. I'm a wealthy lefitie it seems "was household income. Oops  | |||
"I've now found a hmrc table that supports 80k. Will need to work out how the two seem so far off! Has made me realise how lucky I am And maybe I should vote Tory... Jk. Happy to "overpay" tax if it's for the common good. I'm a wealthy lefitie it seems "Now that’s funny and made me laugh
It’s a myth the wealthy pay the majority of tax . They simply don’t. | |||
"I've now found a hmrc table that supports 80k. Will need to work out how the two seem so far off! Has made me realise how lucky I am And maybe I should vote Tory... Jk. Happy to "overpay" tax if it's for the common good. I'm a wealthy lefitie it seems
Now that’s funny and made me laugh
It’s a myth the wealthy pay the majority of tax . They simply don’t. "is the 10pc stat rubbish ? I've rebased what wealthy is... that 10pc is c £60k. And I believe that the stat is income tax only ... But I have seen similar Pareto numbers before... | |||
"I've now found a hmrc table that supports 80k. Will need to work out how the two seem so far off! Has made me realise how lucky I am And maybe I should vote Tory... Jk. Happy to "overpay" tax if it's for the common good. I'm a wealthy lefitie it seems
Now that’s funny and made me laugh
It’s a myth the wealthy pay the majority of tax . They simply don’t. is the 10pc stat rubbish ?
I've rebased what wealthy is... that 10pc is c £60k. And I believe that the stat is income tax only ... But I have seen similar Pareto numbers before... "The stat is gross income not including employers contribution . It’s not disposable income. Otherwise the population would be happy with price increases . Like the 0.1%  | |||
"The Tax Payers Alliance and their Tufton St Mafia chums will be proud. Lovely on message propaganda. Now what really needs to happen is a dramatic simplification of UK Tax rules. We have something like 22,000 pages opening up a plethora of loopholes. Due to underfunding and a refusal to pay Civil Servants sufficiently high salaries to attract the best people, the HMRC outsources a lot of their tax rules development to the big consultancies. These consultancies earn £millions from the state developing ever more complex tax rules that few people other than themselves can ever fully understand. AND THEN these same consultancies develop legal tax avoidance schemes for their wealthy clients based on exploiting the loopholes in the tax rules they themselves designed! I kid you not! A simplified tax regime would not only ensure legal avoidance was reduced and illegal evasion was easier to identify, but as it was clear and fair, would actually encourage better compliance because it will just be easier! Mr Hay on another thread advocated that people should pay taxes based on their usage of public services. So in reality what he means is the poor, sick and elderly, who are disproportionately higher users of public services, should pay more than multi-millionaires and billionaires because, you know, they don’t use the NHS or need social care or public transport or state schools etc etc... ...ignoring the fact that their property, businesses and wealth are protected by the military, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, and they use roads and require public servants to manage the airspace their private jets and helicopters travel through... jeez!" Who is going to give us such change | |||
"This is down right false information. Firstly, the figure most commonly quoted to defend not taxing the rich is "The top 1% pay 30% for income tax revenues". This does not show the true picture. Following a study in 15/16, a quarter of those earning over £1M payed 45% tax, however 1 in 10 payed 11% tax which is the same amount as someone earning minumum wage. This also doesn't take into account that those who are earning a ridiculous amount of money are payed in shares or other ways which mean they pay even less tax. This doesn't even touch the surface of the filthy rich holding wealth in the form of property and capital. These people aren't ordinary, and taxing them isn't anti success. Most wealthy people fall into the latter category where they've been born into wealth. It isn'r a result of a successful career. They can afford to pay tax and live their lavish lifestyles, however they choose to avoid tax. What's the point in living in a country if you don't pay your fair share? You're never going to reach this level of wealth that these people have so it's laughable that you're defending not taxing them.. Re your last point most people like to consider what is beat for the country , not their own personal circumstances. If would be a bit pointless introducing higher tax rates if the end result is that you drive away those already paying tax and end up collecting less . Tony Blair probably had the foresight to see this. " It is not a matter of raising the prevailing tax rate. Simply simplifying the system such that the rate is applicable consistently to all payers, regardless of the vehicle or means by which it is earned. So the “rich” actually pay their full dues, not a portion of it. | |||
"I've now found a hmrc table that supports 80k. Will need to work out how the two seem so far off! Has made me realise how lucky I am And maybe I should vote Tory... Jk. Happy to "overpay" tax if it's for the common good. I'm a wealthy lefitie it seems "The whole 5% figure was “all over the news” a few years ago as someone on BBC QT raised the point and then the media made a bog fuss about it. I thought at the time the number was around 85k to be in the top 5%. BTW i think that 1% number is wrong. That is roughly the amount for central London. National 1% is considerably less. | |||
"Where did you get your numbers from? I've found top 20pc as being c 60k https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021 Got them from around four or five sites as they all presented differently but same end result . Not my figures can you link one? ONS seems a bit off versus these other sites. Yes sure Only had three open on phone . I used 5 to balance it around the post . https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/22/factcheck-earning-80000-or-more-top-5-of-uk-earners-labour https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20092/how-much-pay-makes-you-a-top-earner-in-the-uk/ https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk " https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN254-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%25.pdf | |||
". Re your last point most people like to consider what is beat for the country , not their own personal circumstances. . Have you seen the documentary The Decade the Rich Won? Probably still on iplayer. Nick Clegg trying to get house building on the agenda and fighting the impending inequality that austerity was creating. He didn't say which of his coalition partner tories said "why do you bother, they don't vote for you?" But he did say it was said to him. Most people might consider what is best for the country as a whole, but those in power do not." Very, very few people vote for what's best for the Country, its what's best for them. What we say and what we do are two entirely different things and politicians know this. They don't always get it right, Brexit was a prime example, they must have had slack jaws when they saw the votes coming in. Most of us are two faced and self centred, me included. I don't like to shit on anyone but me and my family come first, everyone else second. Sorry, I'm very shallow. | |||
". Re your last point most people like to consider what is beat for the country , not their own personal circumstances. . Have you seen the documentary The Decade the Rich Won? Probably still on iplayer. Nick Clegg trying to get house building on the agenda and fighting the impending inequality that austerity was creating. He didn't say which of his coalition partner tories said "why do you bother, they don't vote for you?" But he did say it was said to him. Most people might consider what is best for the country as a whole, but those in power do not. Very, very few people vote for what's best for the Country, its what's best for them. What we say and what we do are two entirely different things and politicians know this. They don't always get it right, Brexit was a prime example, they must have had slack jaws when they saw the votes coming in. Most of us are two faced and self centred, me included. I don't like to shit on anyone but me and my family come first, everyone else second. Sorry, I'm very shallow. "I wish everyone did. Most don't. To quote Adam Curtis, once upon a time politicians ran on manifestos that aimed to make lives better. They promised to deliver their dreams, now they promise to protect people from their nightmares. Meanwhile following a free market neo-liberal agenda that actively makes most people worse off. | |||
| |||
"putting up taxes is never a vote winning policy but the state needs money to function so politicians tend to introduce stealth taxes & fiddles that the rich are better at avoiding. If the wealthy paid 60% of the tax most of us would be better off & the wealthy can easily afford it. " What do you describe as wealthy? What level of earnings? Property? Assets? Where would you draw the line to tax people more? | |||
| |||
"I'm not anti wealth, what marks me is how it's obtained. Selling weapons to a country with terrible human rights, asset stripping a profitable company after taking it over for sheer greed and making the workforce redundant, buying a three million pound superyaught with pension money others should get etc..." I agree with this. Plus then those who avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Calling people "anti-success" or "anti-weathly" is just a lazy argument. Why do ordinary people not want the ultra wealthy to contribute to the country so much that they argue with other ordinary people about it? | |||
| |||
"I'm not anti wealth, what marks me is how it's obtained. Selling weapons to a country with terrible human rights, asset stripping a profitable company after taking it over for sheer greed and making the workforce redundant, buying a three million pound superyaught with pension money others should get etc..." This goes beyond the tax system however: Foreign policy Company Law Criminal law Lets fix one thing first. We’re not good at multi tasking in this country. | |||
"I'm not anti wealth, what marks me is how it's obtained. Selling weapons to a country with terrible human rights, asset stripping a profitable company after taking it over for sheer greed and making the workforce redundant, buying a three million pound superyaught with pension money others should get etc... This goes beyond the tax system however: Foreign policy Company Law Criminal law Lets fix one thing first. We’re not good at multi tasking in this country. " Won't happen, utopia doesn't exist, well at least we can't find it. I never understand why some folks have a deep seated hatred of success. Richard Branson ...twat. Ryanair boss...twat...although we all still get on the plane as its the cheapest but he's still a twat. Wetherspoons boss...twat..his crime..taking old derelict buildings and turning them into award winning pubs, cheap food and beer and employing local labour. Twat put local pubs out of business, our local closed down because it was an old, dingy shithole, run by a miserable, hound dog faced, cantankerous old git, but to be fair, he did hate everyone so at least he was consistent. A question. If a virus was about to hit the world would you help slow down it's spread even though it may only effect grandparents and people with underlying health conditions. You made need to put a little bit of paper in front of your face, wash your dirty mitts and put some space between each other. The answer..absolutely governor, you can count on me, no problem whatsoever, always here to help. The reality. Fuck that, my human rights are being violated under article, well forgotten the actual article or if one exists, but asking me not to go to the pub is a fucking outrage. Old people are going to die soon anyway and people with underlying health conditions can just stay at home, selfish twats. Get the drift. Say one thing, do another. | |||
| |||
"I've now found a hmrc table that supports 80k. Will need to work out how the two seem so far off! Has made me realise how lucky I am And maybe I should vote Tory... Jk. Happy to "overpay" tax if it's for the common good. I'm a wealthy lefitie it seems
The whole 5% figure was “all over the news” a few years ago as someone on BBC QT raised the point and then the media made a bog fuss about it. I thought at the time the number was around 85k to be in the top 5%.
BTW i think that 1% number is wrong. That is roughly the amount for central London. National 1% is considerably less. "You may be right I only quoted the site on the 1% | |||
"Where did you get your numbers from? I've found top 20pc as being c 60k https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021 Got them from around four or five sites as they all presented differently but same end result . Not my figures can you link one? ONS seems a bit off versus these other sites. Yes sure Only had three open on phone . I used 5 to balance it around the post . https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/22/factcheck-earning-80000-or-more-top-5-of-uk-earners-labour https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20092/how-much-pay-makes-you-a-top-earner-in-the-uk/ https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN254-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%25.pdf" Looks like the is a higher percentage of the 1% in London according to the graphs but not just limited to London . London has 3.5 times as many . If I’ve read that correctly. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. " I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. | |||
"I'm not anti wealth, what marks me is how it's obtained. Selling weapons to a country with terrible human rights, asset stripping a profitable company after taking it over for sheer greed and making the workforce redundant, buying a three million pound superyaught with pension money others should get etc... This goes beyond the tax system however: Foreign policy Company Law Criminal law Lets fix one thing first. We’re not good at multi tasking in this country. Won't happen, utopia doesn't exist, well at least we can't find it. I never understand why some folks have a deep seated hatred of success. Richard Branson ...twat. Ryanair boss...twat...although we all still get on the plane as its the cheapest but he's still a twat. Wetherspoons boss...twat..his crime..taking old derelict buildings and turning them into award winning pubs, cheap food and beer and employing local labour. Twat put local pubs out of business, our local closed down because it was an old, dingy shithole, run by a miserable, hound dog faced, cantankerous old git, but to be fair, he did hate everyone so at least he was consistent. A question. If a virus was about to hit the world would you help slow down it's spread even though it may only effect grandparents and people with underlying health conditions. You made need to put a little bit of paper in front of your face, wash your dirty mitts and put some space between each other. The answer..absolutely governor, you can count on me, no problem whatsoever, always here to help. The reality. Fuck that, my human rights are being violated under article, well forgotten the actual article or if one exists, but asking me not to go to the pub is a fucking outrage. Old people are going to die soon anyway and people with underlying health conditions can just stay at home, selfish twats. Get the drift. Say one thing, do another. "Tim Wetherspoon's "crime" was summarily sacking all of his staff and telling them Tesco are hiring, while applying for millions in lost revenue from the government. Selling Brexit and then bemoaning the foreign work force leaving and red tape at the borders. Richard Branson was well loved until he sued the NHS. People don't hate success, they laud it. "Made a lot of money though, good for them" is an oft used sentence. People hate unfairness and greed. Not success. | |||
"I'm not anti wealth, what marks me is how it's obtained. Selling weapons to a country with terrible human rights, asset stripping a profitable company after taking it over for sheer greed and making the workforce redundant, buying a three million pound superyaught with pension money others should get etc... This goes beyond the tax system however: Foreign policy Company Law Criminal law Lets fix one thing first. We’re not good at multi tasking in this country. Won't happen, utopia doesn't exist, well at least we can't find it. I never understand why some folks have a deep seated hatred of success. Richard Branson ...twat. Ryanair boss...twat...although we all still get on the plane as its the cheapest but he's still a twat. Wetherspoons boss...twat..his crime..taking old derelict buildings and turning them into award winning pubs, cheap food and beer and employing local labour. Twat put local pubs out of business, our local closed down because it was an old, dingy shithole, run by a miserable, hound dog faced, cantankerous old git, but to be fair, he did hate everyone so at least he was consistent. A question. If a virus was about to hit the world would you help slow down it's spread even though it may only effect grandparents and people with underlying health conditions. You made need to put a little bit of paper in front of your face, wash your dirty mitts and put some space between each other. The answer..absolutely governor, you can count on me, no problem whatsoever, always here to help. The reality. Fuck that, my human rights are being violated under article, well forgotten the actual article or if one exists, but asking me not to go to the pub is a fucking outrage. Old people are going to die soon anyway and people with underlying health conditions can just stay at home, selfish twats. Get the drift. Say one thing, do another.
Tim Wetherspoon's "crime" was summarily sacking all of his staff and telling them Tesco are hiring, while applying for millions in lost revenue from the government. Selling Brexit and then bemoaning the foreign work force leaving and red tape at the borders.
Richard Branson was well loved until he sued the NHS.
People don't hate success, they laud it. "Made a lot of money though, good for them" is an oft used sentence. People hate unfairness and greed. Not success. "It was a lighthearted fun post. I'm not up to speed with the crimes of successful individuals, sure everyone has his or her take on issues. To be fair, can't get too upset, just do my own thing and be as happy and successful as I can be. At this time I'm happy, contented, moderately successful and enjoy life. Hope you do to. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. " Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? " All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies. | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies." Couple of potential additions. 20% surcharge tax if you are non resident and want to buy property in the U.K. stops artificial price rises. Also stop speculative investments from rich foreign owners. Maybe over a five year period bring dividend income tax into line with income tax. The smaller income self employed benefit from bills being paid by their business so their tax is skyward in their favour anyway. . Rich investors do not need help to make more money. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. " I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies. Couple of potential additions. 20% surcharge tax if you are non resident and want to buy property in the U.K. stops artificial price rises. Also stop speculative investments from rich foreign owners. Maybe over a five year period bring dividend income tax into line with income tax. The smaller income self employed benefit from bills being paid by their business so their tax is skyward in their favour anyway. . Rich investors do not need help to make more money. " Re dividends, yes I already said have every form of income harmonised... “...no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest.” | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies." This is sensible, we just need a decent government who will make it happen. Not this current rabble of self serving charlatans. Make tax fair, everyone benefits. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. " I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. " Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. " Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies. This is sensible, we just need a decent government who will make it happen. Not this current rabble of self serving charlatans. Make tax fair, everyone benefits." I agree the current bunch won't make this happen but looks like the other parties won't either so best not get hopes up just yet | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html" That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy." Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. " The private sector would contract there’s no doubt, but there are lots of advantages that exist that parents are willing to pay for: Better pastoral care - dedicated councillors, and enrichment lessons. Better standard of facilities and equipment. Multitude of extra curricular activities. Plenty if school trips; skiing, DofE etc. The fees are only about 1/2 the cost per term. And in some areas there is little state choice. Here for example there are more private than state within the catchment area so it is walking distance vs car trip or bus. Also a consideration. Class sizes are far from the only factor. | |||
"putting up taxes is never a vote winning policy but the state needs money to function so politicians tend to introduce stealth taxes & fiddles that the rich are better at avoiding. If the wealthy paid 60% of the tax most of us would be better off & the wealthy can easily afford it. " If the wealthy or anyone was forced to pay more. We wouldn’t be in a better position. Government would simply find more ways to blow it. Your british taxes paid £11b to the indo-pacific climate fun. £230,000 to the head of NHS diversity (£73k more than the PM) and £75 for a SINGLE air freshener in the Durham NHS trust. Low tax economies run better and generally through productivity earn more tax revenue. I recommend the book “daylight robbery” | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. The private sector would contract there’s no doubt, but there are lots of advantages that exist that parents are willing to pay for: Better pastoral care - dedicated councillors, and enrichment lessons. Better standard of facilities and equipment. Multitude of extra curricular activities. Plenty if school trips; skiing, DofE etc. The fees are only about 1/2 the cost per term. And in some areas there is little state choice. Here for example there are more private than state within the catchment area so it is walking distance vs car trip or bus. Also a consideration. Class sizes are far from the only factor. " All the above are examples of where money should be spent. It’s not just about brand new buildings and outdoor classrooms which the state waste millions on it about in many ways copying the private schools best elements to improve our educations system, working as a giver or I couldn’t believe how much money is wasted due to central government doctrines, the school I was invoked with needed an extra teacher but the roll numbers didn’t calculate in the system. We had £30 for an outdoor classroom which we already had . I wasn’t allowed to use that money for teacher as it was ring fenced. The result a very elaborate parents shelter to wait in if it rains. , . A private school would have the teacher. | |||
| |||
| |||
"You pay taxes to create roads, fight fires and educate kids? No, you pay taxes because you’d be arrested if you didn’t... Hahaha" I pay taxes because I don't have £30k to spare.  | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies. This is sensible, we just need a decent government who will make it happen. Not this current rabble of self serving charlatans. Make tax fair, everyone benefits." Part of the above about claiming say for fuel costs etc if self employed . As above would still be allowable. Yet if person a builder for example . Can claim for fuel usage per year. Yet someone who is traveling to and from place of work on PAYE cannot. I know of builders etc. Who will not travel over say 30 miles to a job. Can claim for fuel . Yet again know of PAYE people who travel 30 miles each way to their jobs. Cannot claim for fuel. How to stop this type of discrepancy if all pay equal taxes? | |||
"This may be an question about taxing people ‘ALL’ the same . How would it work. I am thinking about the self employed builders, plumbers , electricians etc. Do you tell them that they would have to pay the same National insurance and tax the same as a PAYE person. Not be able to claim for for , tools , vehicle , fuel and say office / telephone stationary etc. I was self employed for a while and yes paid very little tax on income. This compared to what I was paying on PAYE. So how can you have a standard tax system so all pay the same? All of those items should be tax deductible on gross “company” income. Once accounted for you then have the amount to pay tax on. We need to simplify UK tax rules (currently running to 22,000 pages!) and also therefore reduce the administrative burden. I am sure some clever economist on here will be able to demonstrate why this won’t work but I think the only fair way is to have more tax bands that are harmonised. So up to £12k tax free no matter whether that is salary, dividends, pension or savings interest. Then b/w £12,001 and £24,000 all of those at 15% Income Tax Then b/w £24,001 and £48,000 all those at 25% Income Tax Then b/w £48,001 and £96,000 all those at 35% Income Tax Then above £96,001 all those at 45% Income Tax Remove National Insurance. Remove tax credits and all these other repay administrative inefficiencies. Allow everyone to keep full Child Benefit (removing the nonsense that claws it back if one member if household earns b/w £50k-£60k) Stop taking away the tax free allowance (currently £12,570) from those earning b/w £100k-£125k. Require very strict evidence and adherence for Non Dom status (no more pay us £30k to avoid tax). If genuine Non Dom then fine. Make your life in the UK, then pay tax in UK. Simples. Need to look at Corporate Tax too and make it mandatory for Corps to pay tax in the country where they generate their income on that income. No more cross border divisional transfers to low tax regimes or IP/royalty payments to off shored holding companies. This is sensible, we just need a decent government who will make it happen. Not this current rabble of self serving charlatans. Make tax fair, everyone benefits. Part of the above about claiming say for fuel costs etc if self employed . As above would still be allowable. Yet if person a builder for example . Can claim for fuel usage per year. Yet someone who is traveling to and from place of work on PAYE cannot. I know of builders etc. Who will not travel over say 30 miles to a job. Can claim for fuel . Yet again know of PAYE people who travel 30 miles each way to their jobs. Cannot claim for fuel. How to stop this type of discrepancy if all pay equal taxes? " I am sure these things can be argued in multiple ways but for me the simple(ish) answer is that commuting to a job is not a business expense because you have “chosen” to work for a company 30 miles away. The cost of the commute is therefore a personal cost. The builder, in your example, is travelling as part of their work so it is a business expense. If the PAYE person travelled as part of their work (a sales rep for example) then that mileage would be paid for by the company and be tax deductible. Now we all know you can fiddle self employed mileage and say it was a work related journey but that is really a matter of honesty, regulation and enforcement rather than whether something is a legit business expense. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. " The reality of removing charitable status from Private Schools and making them pay VAT would be an increase of fees by c.30% payable by the parents. This would not impact the seriously wealthy as proportionately to their wealth it would really just be an annoyance. However, it would price out the higher middle income earners (generally speaking the likes of doctors, solicitors, SME business owners etc). This would ultimately see the majority of smaller private schools closing down but would not impact on the really elite schools (like Eton, Marlborough, Winchester etc) or those that have boarders (as many of these have high proportions of foreign students anyway). Let’s say out of the c.600k students in Private, c.100k therefore remain (as part of the super elite) but the other c.500k need to enter the state system. Out of current taxation each student in state is claimed to be funded by £6,970 per year. That means the Govt needs to increase funding by c.£3.5bn a year but without any corresponding increase in tax revenues. I fully agree we need to increase state education funding with student numbers as they are but this would be an even bigger ask with another 500k pupils. It also would not address the ideological objections as the super elite will be able to continue at places like Eton. It is short-sighted of the state to not invest more heavily in better quality state education as the future wealth of the state as a whole depends on the quality of the workers it has at its disposal and we need to compete globally to secure inward investment. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. The reality of removing charitable status from Private Schools and making them pay VAT would be an increase of fees by c.30% payable by the parents. This would not impact the seriously wealthy as proportionately to their wealth it would really just be an annoyance. However, it would price out the higher middle income earners (generally speaking the likes of doctors, solicitors, SME business owners etc). This would ultimately see the majority of smaller private schools closing down but would not impact on the really elite schools (like Eton, Marlborough, Winchester etc) or those that have boarders (as many of these have high proportions of foreign students anyway). Let’s say out of the c.600k students in Private, c.100k therefore remain (as part of the super elite) but the other c.500k need to enter the state system. Out of current taxation each student in state is claimed to be funded by £6,970 per year. That means the Govt needs to increase funding by c.£3.5bn a year but without any corresponding increase in tax revenues. I fully agree we need to increase state education funding with student numbers as they are but this would be an even bigger ask with another 500k pupils. It also would not address the ideological objections as the super elite will be able to continue at places like Eton. It is short-sighted of the state to not invest more heavily in better quality state education as the future wealth of the state as a whole depends on the quality of the workers it has at its disposal and we need to compete globally to secure inward investment." how much is the tax break ? If the average school fee is 15k, and so this goes up to 20k, that feels like the tax benefit ATM is similar to the cost of funding a state school kid. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. The reality of removing charitable status from Private Schools and making them pay VAT would be an increase of fees by c.30% payable by the parents. This would not impact the seriously wealthy as proportionately to their wealth it would really just be an annoyance. However, it would price out the higher middle income earners (generally speaking the likes of doctors, solicitors, SME business owners etc). This would ultimately see the majority of smaller private schools closing down but would not impact on the really elite schools (like Eton, Marlborough, Winchester etc) or those that have boarders (as many of these have high proportions of foreign students anyway). Let’s say out of the c.600k students in Private, c.100k therefore remain (as part of the super elite) but the other c.500k need to enter the state system. Out of current taxation each student in state is claimed to be funded by £6,970 per year. That means the Govt needs to increase funding by c.£3.5bn a year but without any corresponding increase in tax revenues. I fully agree we need to increase state education funding with student numbers as they are but this would be an even bigger ask with another 500k pupils. It also would not address the ideological objections as the super elite will be able to continue at places like Eton. It is short-sighted of the state to not invest more heavily in better quality state education as the future wealth of the state as a whole depends on the quality of the workers it has at its disposal and we need to compete globally to secure inward investment.how much is the tax break ? If the average school fee is 15k, and so this goes up to 20k, that feels like the tax benefit ATM is similar to the cost of funding a state school kid. " Can you show your workings? | |||
"putting up taxes is never a vote winning policy but the state needs money to function so politicians tend to introduce stealth taxes & fiddles that the rich are better at avoiding. If the wealthy paid 60% of the tax most of us would be better off & the wealthy can easily afford it. If the wealthy or anyone was forced to pay more. We wouldn’t be in a better position. Government would simply find more ways to blow it. Your british taxes paid £11b to the indo-pacific climate fun. £230,000 to the head of NHS diversity (£73k more than the PM) and £75 for a SINGLE air freshener in the Durham NHS trust. Low tax economies run better and generally through productivity earn more tax revenue. I recommend the book “daylight robbery”" I do love it when people think the solution is less tax, as if that's an incentive to use money more wisely. If you worked in the public sector you'd know civil servants are making do with the funding they get. And just a bit of context... the £75 air freshener was by a hospital run by... a PRIVATE trust. Not the public sector nor the NHS. And besides, that was over 10 years ago. Bit of a stretch using that to justify lower tax. Spoiler.... The current gov of Alexander Johnson and his chums have stolen Billions of taxpayer money in the form of dodgy PPE contracts. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. The reality of removing charitable status from Private Schools and making them pay VAT would be an increase of fees by c.30% payable by the parents. This would not impact the seriously wealthy as proportionately to their wealth it would really just be an annoyance. However, it would price out the higher middle income earners (generally speaking the likes of doctors, solicitors, SME business owners etc). This would ultimately see the majority of smaller private schools closing down but would not impact on the really elite schools (like Eton, Marlborough, Winchester etc) or those that have boarders (as many of these have high proportions of foreign students anyway). Let’s say out of the c.600k students in Private, c.100k therefore remain (as part of the super elite) but the other c.500k need to enter the state system. Out of current taxation each student in state is claimed to be funded by £6,970 per year. That means the Govt needs to increase funding by c.£3.5bn a year but without any corresponding increase in tax revenues. I fully agree we need to increase state education funding with student numbers as they are but this would be an even bigger ask with another 500k pupils. It also would not address the ideological objections as the super elite will be able to continue at places like Eton. It is short-sighted of the state to not invest more heavily in better quality state education as the future wealth of the state as a whole depends on the quality of the workers it has at its disposal and we need to compete globally to secure inward investment.how much is the tax break ? If the average school fee is 15k, and so this goes up to 20k, that feels like the tax benefit ATM is similar to the cost of funding a state school kid. Can you show your workings?" One thing they teach in private schools is research snd self starting. State schools tend to before about placing development on a set if rails where one size fits all. Whilst calculating the benefit of the charitable status is much harder than the impact of VAT (at least in terms of impact to the parent, if not the treasury) But they are (very) roughly in the ballpark. “The amount spent on each primary school child in England in 2017-18 was £4,700, compared with £6,200 for secondary school children. However, priorities have shifted, with per pupil spending on primary schools increasing by 135% since 1990 after accounting for inflation, compared with 86% for secondaries.” https://ifs.org.uk/publications/15764 Vs “Around 600,000 children – seven per cent of all pupils – attend private schools in Britain, with about a third of that total receiving assistance with those fees. With average fees standing at £15,600 per annum, the VAT proposals would add about £3,100 to the cost annual of a place.” Yet it ignores the fact that if private schools had to levy VAT, they could then start reclaiming all the VAT that they “spend”. “Currently, schools pay VAT on their expenditure, but they do not get the option to reclaim VAT, as businesses do. Independent schools send this VAT straight to the Treasury” https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/taxing-private-schools-truth-behind-bluster So not sure it is quite evened out in practise. One thing is certain - UK does need to spend more on education as the overall standard in the state sector has fallen due to Govt neglect, in adequate funding and way too much paperwork and admin for teachers. So I would certainly be in favour of increased funding as a rising tide should lift everyone - not just those who can afford it. BTW - i don’t think an extra 5k per year would put the fees out of reach of those you think e.g doctors) above. I know many doctors who out 2 even 3 kids at a time through private school. They’d simply trade in the Merc or Tesla for a Kia until the kids go to Uni, or maybe the non working spouse might need a part time job. Alternative is they’d miss a few rounds of golf to do a few more private consultations to make up the difference. With such a huge backlog of NHS work the fees for private work to help clear it are impressive! The impact would be a bit lower down and affect those mostly in receipt of lower/subsidised fees as the lack of charitable status would Make it harder to fund those places and the parents would not be able to make up the difference. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. The reality of removing charitable status from Private Schools and making them pay VAT would be an increase of fees by c.30% payable by the parents. This would not impact the seriously wealthy as proportionately to their wealth it would really just be an annoyance. However, it would price out the higher middle income earners (generally speaking the likes of doctors, solicitors, SME business owners etc). This would ultimately see the majority of smaller private schools closing down but would not impact on the really elite schools (like Eton, Marlborough, Winchester etc) or those that have boarders (as many of these have high proportions of foreign students anyway). Let’s say out of the c.600k students in Private, c.100k therefore remain (as part of the super elite) but the other c.500k need to enter the state system. Out of current taxation each student in state is claimed to be funded by £6,970 per year. That means the Govt needs to increase funding by c.£3.5bn a year but without any corresponding increase in tax revenues. I fully agree we need to increase state education funding with student numbers as they are but this would be an even bigger ask with another 500k pupils. It also would not address the ideological objections as the super elite will be able to continue at places like Eton. It is short-sighted of the state to not invest more heavily in better quality state education as the future wealth of the state as a whole depends on the quality of the workers it has at its disposal and we need to compete globally to secure inward investment.how much is the tax break ? If the average school fee is 15k, and so this goes up to 20k, that feels like the tax benefit ATM is similar to the cost of funding a state school kid. Can you show your workings?" 15k was from independent schools council annual status. Fee increase was your number. As was state school funding. In kinda assuming that not paying vat = cost to tax payer. But my point is more that if there is a cost today to the tax payer, then we need to balance that odd against the increase in cost to the tax payer of more state funded pupils. I don't know what the maths is. Just that there is maths. | |||
"One thing is clear we do need two very hard and frank conversations as a society: What we are willing to publicly fund. What and who we are willing to (fairly and uniformly) tax to fund it. We keep hearing that there is a need for more and money - am a soft conservative/socialist at heart…… BUT where does the burden end before we wake and realise that through educational neglect and supporting bad lifestyle choices that the burden will never stop increasing unless we make bug changes as a society? E.g I’m PRO NHS. Don’t agree with privatising it. BUT with an ever more obese population should we be letting people who are dependant on the public tit eat themselves to the point they can’t walk and then pay for expensive treatments (obese count for a huge percentage of spend). This is not fat shaming - these are facts based on clinical spend and the consumers of that spend. Should we be taxing further those who take private measures (e.g education) - Also fun the public system and don’t get a rebate - and then ask them to pay VAT on top? That seems to be a step too far and the politics of envy. And these two points illustrate the nuanced complexity of getting fairness into the system. Everyone has different needs / different abilities to pay and different priorities or pet peevs. I agree with most of this but the public school debate need balance as the charitable status means the tax payer does in fact support private education . If state schools had the same pupil to teacher ratios the private sector would be less attractive . In fact the only attraction would be networking through the class system which is how we supply most of our PMs and Ministers. Take away the charitable status. Ideologically I’d be ok with that. No need for the state to subsidise private school. But adding VAT also a step too far (I commented on the labor manifesto bit as they were going to do both). Oh and yes if state schools improve ratios, teacher quality and retention then yes of course the incentive to privately educate would reduce for many…. But then like any market the sector would reinvent. Ratios in private would change. Other value add and innovations would come in to help differentiate - and if parents could afford it then some would pay. There are a myriad benefits. Not just class sizes. If the changes cost another 10k a year then many would find a way regardless. I don’t agree with changing the status of Private Schools. Either removing charitable status or charging VAT. All parents with children in Private school pay the fees from net (post tax) income and have therefore already supported the state education system through their tax, which they are not using (but no I do not think they should get any kind rebate as that is the choice they have made). In addition Private Schools provide scholarships and bursaries to enable children to attend whose parents could not afford the fees. That is a charitable activity. However, that needs to be tightly monitored and minimum thresholds be in place. I agree they shouldn’t be charged vat as the tax has already be paid. No issue with that. Bursaries are offered to 1 in 100 pupils of a private school. The private schools do not do charity to qualify for charitable status and only offer a token gesture according the the charity commission. “With so much more cash pouring into the private sector, it is hardly surprising that its pupils are over-represented at Oxbridge (40%), in the senior judiciary (74%) and in the House of Commons (32%). So is it any wonder, as we look on with horror at the democratic crisis created by the current crop of politicians, that we question the educational backgrounds of our leaders? Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, even Caroline Lucas, all benefited from a private education advantage. The time is right to urgently examine a system that gives so much to a select few but denies millions of children a fair start in life.” Public schools install confidence and provide channels of opportunity state school pupils can only ever dream of. I personally would heavily invest in our education system and make it worth the best teachers while to teach in the public sector. Not sure where you get the 1 in 100 pupils get bursary figure? That may potentially be the case for the sector as a whole (and if so then that isn’t good enough) but is not my observation of the Private Schools where I live. There are significantly higher proportions of bursaries AND scholarships (which you didn’t mention) with high numbers of parents opting for private due to how poor the state system has become. If the state system was improved, many of these parents would not make the huge financial sacrifices to put their kids into private. Figures from the guardian. In a lot of cases it’s not such a sacrifice. See the link below which explains how many exploit their charitable status. I’m not against the private schools because they serve arm forces children etc very well but their tax benefits should be removed. The state is there to help society not support the wealthier in society to obtain an further advantage. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2558653/The-5-sneaky-perfectly-legal-ways-Britains-richest-parents-cut-tax-bill-private-school-fees.html That article is from 2014 so at least one of those 5 ways will no longer work due to the tax free dividend threshold being dropped from £10k pa to £2k pa. The armed forces thing is interesting. Many students in private boarding schools are indeed because their parents are military or Foreign Office and stationed overseas. Those fees are actually paid for by the taxpayer! So removing charitable status will increase fees therefore increasing cost to taxpayers for offspring of our overseas public sector workers. It will also push the fees out of the reach of higher middle income parents resulting in an influx of up to 600k children back into the state system (with no additional funding) and, ironically, ensuring Private schools really are the preserve of the very wealthy. Erm you still pay less tax through a dividend do you not? The school also benefits from the added funding which benefits in full from the cash not being taxed. The tax saving number I really don’t know so can’t argue how much it will cost the government in loss or benefit. I’m advocating far more money being spent on education. So in the overall scheme of things it would benefit those 600k . If you make teaching in the public sector more attractive with a combination of better wages and smaller class sizes you attract the best teachers. This by default will make private schools struggle. There aren’t enough very rich people to keep all the schools open. Plenty of teachers looking for jobs. The above bias of public schools taking the unfair proportion of better careers is just wrong. The provision of boarding schools for mod/ civil service staff is the key point so if state schools offered the same option it would be a much cheaper option for the state and tax payer. You can’t expect government staff to move abroad and not offer a stable education for their children. Boardings schools are mostly private unfortunately. The reality of removing charitable status from Private Schools and making them pay VAT would be an increase of fees by c.30% payable by the parents. This would not impact the seriously wealthy as proportionately to their wealth it would really just be an annoyance. However, it would price out the higher middle income earners (generally speaking the likes of doctors, solicitors, SME business owners etc). This would ultimately see the majority of smaller private schools closing down but would not impact on the really elite schools (like Eton, Marlborough, Winchester etc) or those that have boarders (as many of these have high proportions of foreign students anyway). Let’s say out of the c.600k students in Private, c.100k therefore remain (as part of the super elite) but the other c.500k need to enter the state system. Out of current taxation each student in state is claimed to be funded by £6,970 per year. That means the Govt needs to increase funding by c.£3.5bn a year but without any corresponding increase in tax revenues. I fully agree we need to increase state education funding with student numbers as they are but this would be an even bigger ask with another 500k pupils. It also would not address the ideological objections as the super elite will be able to continue at places like Eton. It is short-sighted of the state to not invest more heavily in better quality state education as the future wealth of the state as a whole depends on the quality of the workers it has at its disposal and we need to compete globally to secure inward investment.how much is the tax break ? If the average school fee is 15k, and so this goes up to 20k, that feels like the tax benefit ATM is similar to the cost of funding a state school kid. Can you show your workings? One thing they teach in private schools is research snd self starting. State schools tend to before about placing development on a set if rails where one size fits all. Whilst calculating the benefit of the charitable status is much harder than the impact of VAT (at least in terms of impact to the parent, if not the treasury) But they are (very) roughly in the ballpark. “The amount spent on each primary school child in England in 2017-18 was £4,700, compared with £6,200 for secondary school children. However, priorities have shifted, with per pupil spending on primary schools increasing by 135% since 1990 after accounting for inflation, compared with 86% for secondaries.” https://ifs.org.uk/publications/15764 Vs “Around 600,000 children – seven per cent of all pupils – attend private schools in Britain, with about a third of that total receiving assistance with those fees. With average fees standing at £15,600 per annum, the VAT proposals would add about £3,100 to the cost annual of a place.” Yet it ignores the fact that if private schools had to levy VAT, they could then start reclaiming all the VAT that they “spend”. “Currently, schools pay VAT on their expenditure, but they do not get the option to reclaim VAT, as businesses do. Independent schools send this VAT straight to the Treasury” https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/taxing-private-schools-truth-behind-bluster So not sure it is quite evened out in practise. One thing is certain - UK does need to spend more on education as the overall standard in the state sector has fallen due to Govt neglect, in adequate funding and way too much paperwork and admin for teachers. So I would certainly be in favour of increased funding as a rising tide should lift everyone - not just those who can afford it. BTW - i don’t think an extra 5k per year would put the fees out of reach of those you think e.g doctors) above. I know many doctors who out 2 even 3 kids at a time through private school. They’d simply trade in the Merc or Tesla for a Kia until the kids go to Uni, or maybe the non working spouse might need a part time job. Alternative is they’d miss a few rounds of golf to do a few more private consultations to make up the difference. With such a huge backlog of NHS work the fees for private work to help clear it are impressive! The impact would be a bit lower down and affect those mostly in receipt of lower/subsidised fees as the lack of charitable status would Make it harder to fund those places and the parents would not be able to make up the difference. " Not arguing with any of that Hotwife apart from the third of private pupils receiving assistance. Where is that figure from a friend how is assistance define? | |||
" Not arguing with any of that Hotwife apart from the third of private pupils receiving assistance. Where is that figure from a friend how is assistance define? " Must admit I thought that fraction rather high. It was a quote from the linked article. No idea what the raw data is. I suspect it is much lower if assessed in practical terms. But I have no basis for that hunch other than gut feel. | |||
" Not arguing with any of that Hotwife apart from the third of private pupils receiving assistance. Where is that figure from a friend how is assistance define? Must admit I thought that fraction rather high. It was a quote from the linked article. No idea what the raw data is. I suspect it is much lower if assessed in practical terms. But I have no basis for that hunch other than gut feel. " This article suggests that the proportion is much lower, by 1/2. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/31/private-school-bursaries-still-too-scarce-to-tackle-inequality And also states that the proportion of assistance to those in receipt has reduced due to fees increasing on average 60% in real terms over the last 20 years or so. As a society we are letting down our children and in turn the future of the country. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Not arguing with any of that Hotwife apart from the third of private pupils receiving assistance. Where is that figure from a friend how is assistance define? Must admit I thought that fraction rather high. It was a quote from the linked article. No idea what the raw data is. I suspect it is much lower if assessed in practical terms. But I have no basis for that hunch other than gut feel. This article suggests that the proportion is much lower, by 1/2. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/31/private-school-bursaries-still-too-scarce-to-tackle-inequality And also states that the proportion of assistance to those in receipt has reduced due to fees increasing on average 60% in real terms over the last 20 years or so. As a society we are letting down our children and in turn the future of the country. " Yes the other article by the guardian claims 1 in a hundred are offered full scholarships so maybe 10 are given partial assurance to create a nicer looking ratio. I don’t think this topic is one to argue over I think it’s exposed how poorly managed out stage education system is. It’s underfunded but also chronically wastes that funding by having no accountability. I fellow fabber suggested the school boards financial managers and central planning need holding yo account as they waste money like water. I tend to agree. | |||
