FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The labour manifesto thread
The labour manifesto thread
Jump to: Newest in thread
Seemed a professional and pragmatic manifesto to me. Particularly like the focus on wealthy generation. At the end of the day, a robust economy is the only route to prosperity for us all. The rest is just noise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x"
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x"
Very specifically says no rise in income tax or NI or VAT. So that means anything else is still on the table and thresholds are staying frozen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seemed a professional and pragmatic manifesto to me. Particularly like the focus on wealthy generation. At the end of the day, a robust economy is the only route to prosperity for us all. The rest is just noise."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose."
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose."
Equivalent to less than one months interest payments on our national debt. That tories have trebled. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries "
Sounds like a licence to pay people whatever they want. I’m sure these people aren’t cynical money grubbers at all. Patient safety and all that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Very specifically says no rise in income tax or NI or VAT. So that means anything else is still on the table and thresholds are staying frozen."
£8.7trn of property in Uk. That’s the biggest target. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries
Sounds like a licence to pay people whatever they want. I’m sure these people aren’t cynical money grubbers at all. Patient safety and all that."
Doctors are paid more in Australia (for example). I hope your distaste for them means you will willingly turn down their efforts to save your life? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries
Sounds like a licence to pay people whatever they want. I’m sure these people aren’t cynical money grubbers at all. Patient safety and all that.
Doctors are paid more in Australia (for example). I hope your distaste for them means you will willingly turn down their efforts to save your life?"
Doctors in Cuba are paid a pittance and we all know that Cuba has the best health service in the world.
I don’t think I want my doctor to be motivated by money. I’d prefer if they were motivated by concern for their patients. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it."
That link shows they anticipate to raise £73bn annually
Current state spending is £1,100,000,000,000 pa
If my maths is correct their policies will raise an extra 0.7% of state spending. Not looking a lot and two thirds of it reliant on closing non dom scheme to which there may be a downside which is not analysed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries
Sounds like a licence to pay people whatever they want. I’m sure these people aren’t cynical money grubbers at all. Patient safety and all that.
Doctors are paid more in Australia (for example). I hope your distaste for them means you will willingly turn down their efforts to save your life?"
Doctors in Cuba are paid a pittance and we all know that Cuba has the best health service in the world.
I don’t think I want my doctor to be motivated by money. I’d prefer if they were motivated by concern for their patients. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Very specifically says no rise in income tax or NI or VAT. So that means anything else is still on the table and thresholds are staying frozen."
Ffs (re frozen thresholds) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries "
I ought to pay tax in Malta then  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries
Sounds like a licence to pay people whatever they want. I’m sure these people aren’t cynical money grubbers at all. Patient safety and all that.
Doctors are paid more in Australia (for example). I hope your distaste for them means you will willingly turn down their efforts to save your life?
Doctors in Cuba are paid a pittance and we all know that Cuba has the best health service in the world.
I don’t think I want my doctor to be motivated by money. I’d prefer if they were motivated by concern for their patients. "
Ah the old “public servants should be happy they work for us” argument righto |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it.
That link shows they anticipate to raise £73bn annually
Current state spending is £1,100,000,000,000 pa
If my maths is correct their policies will raise an extra 0.7% of state spending. Not looking a lot and two thirds of it reliant on closing non dom scheme to which there may be a downside which is not analysed. "
7.3bn
Of which 5bm is from a similar source that both the Tories have said will cover the cost of their triple plus etc, and libs have used as well. It's from an obr (or similar) range irrc.
Whether it's believable who knows. Probably has costs associated and one wonders why Tories in particular haven't gone for it earlier. Not low hanging fruit imo.
But if it's stupidity, it's shared stupidity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it."
Closing tax loopholes is generally good but trying to put a figure on how much it will raise is difficult as its not an exact science and people react differently. If you commit to a estimated figure which is not realised then money has to come from elsewhere. Plenty of taxes they have not ruled out and people's pensions are there for more tax, as are savings. It looks like after complaining (rightfully) about the highest tax burden in 70 years they plan to increase it even more |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it.
Closing tax loopholes is generally good but trying to put a figure on how much it will raise is difficult as its not an exact science and people react differently. If you commit to a estimated figure which is not realised then money has to come from elsewhere. Plenty of taxes they have not ruled out and people's pensions are there for more tax, as are savings. It looks like after complaining (rightfully) about the highest tax burden in 70 years they plan to increase it even more"
Agreed but with caveats…
1. Knowing the state of our Govt finances any new govt regardless of rosette colour is going to need to raise “money”. They either raise taxes or borrow (even more).
2. I really wish the two main parties would be more honest. Trouble is we know how that goes as casual voters just see the headline of “you will pay more tax” without understanding the broader picture. It is why the Tories continue to trot out the now ridiculed £2,000 figure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it.
Closing tax loopholes is generally good but trying to put a figure on how much it will raise is difficult as its not an exact science and people react differently. If you commit to a estimated figure which is not realised then money has to come from elsewhere. Plenty of taxes they have not ruled out and people's pensions are there for more tax, as are savings. It looks like after complaining (rightfully) about the highest tax burden in 70 years they plan to increase it even more
Agreed but with caveats…
1. Knowing the state of our Govt finances any new govt regardless of rosette colour is going to need to raise “money”. They either raise taxes or borrow (even more).
2. I really wish the two main parties would be more honest. Trouble is we know how that goes as casual voters just see the headline of “you will pay more tax” without understanding the broader picture. It is why the Tories continue to trot out the now ridiculed £2,000 figure."
Oops one final point…
They are all hoping beyond hope that the global, and therefore UK, economy picks up driving growth and tax receipts. Labour so they can say “see we didn’t have to increase taxes” and Conservatives “see this is how we could actually fund the NI cut”! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it "
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/
Looks like they plan to fund all their plans by getting money out of tax "loopholes". Not sure if they are really dumb or feigning stupidity.
Most of their laws to close these "loopholes" are easy to get around. They won't get any money out of it.
Closing tax loopholes is generally good but trying to put a figure on how much it will raise is difficult as its not an exact science and people react differently. If you commit to a estimated figure which is not realised then money has to come from elsewhere. Plenty of taxes they have not ruled out and people's pensions are there for more tax, as are savings. It looks like after complaining (rightfully) about the highest tax burden in 70 years they plan to increase it even more"
Agree with you. The non-dom thing was never a loophole though. If someone doesn't want to pay UK tax on foreign income, they have to claim remittance basis and that comes with one important condition - You are not allowed to bring that money to UK.
But unfortunately people fell for it as some politicians repeatedly called it a "loophole" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”"
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
"
I think you shouldn’t hold back and just say what you really think 
ANY new govt will need to either raise taxes or further increase borrowing because thanks to the Tories “there’s no money”
The Tories have raised taxes hugely but it is always slight of hand and stealth so that can say “look we are cutting NI” to make a good Daily Mail headline.
You seem to have a hard on for the public sector. On another thread you implied that Doctors should be happy with whatever pay they receive (and be grateful) as they are clearly just there to serve you.
Are you one of those who thinks we should not have any public services? Everything private sector. If you can’t afford it then tough, go without! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
"
isn't Brum, in part at least, due to the Equal pay claim that pre dates labour years ?
Also, Woking and Thurrock says hi.
Using local politics as a yard stick for national politics isn't the best imo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
"
Whereas Mordaunt trots out the same lies, rehearsed over and over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
Almost all the parties are raising taxes for the man in the street via fiscal drag.
The Tories are patting themselves on the back from saving pensioners from the cliff they have pushed them towards.
Reform have addressed it.
But if you take less tax than is in current budgets, you need a plan.
Both the Tories and reform have suggested efficiencies which get miracled up every five years. On top of cuts already budgeted.
So in reality there are either cuts or tax raises. Whatever the colour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Labour will raise the taxes that I've mentioned and they will give a lame accuse why they had to, probably not straight away but a year from now if they get in government which I hope they dont"
Love it when people post the same thing but don’t use quotes! Here you go…
" They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour will raise the taxes that I've mentioned and they will give a lame accuse why they had to, probably not straight away but a year from now if they get in government which I hope they dont"
For balance the tories have already increased taxes to the highest since 1948. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Almost all the parties are raising taxes for the man in the street via fiscal drag.
The Tories are patting themselves on the back from saving pensioners from the cliff they have pushed them towards.
Reform have addressed it.
But if you take less tax than is in current budgets, you need a plan.
Both the Tories and reform have suggested efficiencies which get miracled up every five years. On top of cuts already budgeted.
So in reality there are either cuts or tax raises. Whatever the colour. "
This is why we are direly in need of politicians who honestly tell people that the welfare system is just isn't sustainable anymore and hard compromises are to he made. Collecting more tax wouldn't fix the welfare system either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
Whereas Mordaunt trots out the same lies, rehearsed over and over."
My comments weren’t an attempt to defend the Tories. They have been dismal and need to go.
But unfortunately that means a Labour government by default in terms of how our electoral system works.
And people are going to realise very quickly that they have elected a bunch of idiots who are totally out of their depth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read it yet. Was there any mention of tax rises?
Mrs x
Telegraph reporting £8.6 billion of tax rises.
As long as my income is transferred to underpaid doctors I am happy with it.
There is always the food bank I suppose.
Remember when you are rushed to A&E and these doctors are just about to save your life, tell them you don’t think they are worth their salaries
Sounds like a licence to pay people whatever they want. I’m sure these people aren’t cynical money grubbers at all. Patient safety and all that."
No, they aren’t, they treat everyone equally, regardless of their political persuasion. They can however, as some of the most intelligent people in the country, choose to stop being a doctor and get a much better paid job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it "
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Almost all the parties are raising taxes for the man in the street via fiscal drag.
The Tories are patting themselves on the back from saving pensioners from the cliff they have pushed them towards.
Reform have addressed it.
But if you take less tax than is in current budgets, you need a plan.
Both the Tories and reform have suggested efficiencies which get miracled up every five years. On top of cuts already budgeted.
So in reality there are either cuts or tax raises. Whatever the colour.
This is why we are direly in need of politicians who honestly tell people that the welfare system is just isn't sustainable anymore and hard compromises are to he made. Collecting more tax wouldn't fix the welfare system either."
but where ?
I'm struggling to find up to date numbers in the splits, but it feels like their is a disconnect between the big spends and the headline groups people go after.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
Whereas Mordaunt trots out the same lies, rehearsed over and over.
My comments weren’t an attempt to defend the Tories. They have been dismal and need to go.
But unfortunately that means a Labour government by default in terms of how our electoral system works.
And people are going to realise very quickly that they have elected a bunch of idiots who are totally out of their depth."
Let them get their feet under the table  . Your condemnation of them as a govt is baseless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?"
If that happens, hopefully a decent threshold. I'm thinking of people who sell but, for example the chain breaks, so rents until they find a property to buy. IE it only looks like capital gains. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
They might yes. But you cannot say they will.
They might and I think probably will but not in first two years and will then say “we have done all we can to avoid any tax rises but once we got into govt and properly understood the “books” we now have little choice due to 14 years of mismanagement by the Tories”
There is absolutely no way that Labour isn’t going to raise taxes.
They will have no alternative to make sure they have the cash to hand the pork out to their public sector voters.
I’m a currently a resident of bankrupt Birmingham which has been a safe Labour Council for years, and the country will end up in the same place.
Plus the Labour front bench is the most talentless group of people we have ever had running the country. It is a mind bogglingly shallow pool of ability. Watching Rayner last night, she really is as thick as two short planks and struggles to string a coherent sentence together, particularly under pressure.
Whereas Mordaunt trots out the same lies, rehearsed over and over.
My comments weren’t an attempt to defend the Tories. They have been dismal and need to go.
But unfortunately that means a Labour government by default in terms of how our electoral system works.
And people are going to realise very quickly that they have elected a bunch of idiots who are totally out of their depth."
As opposed to having deselected a bunch of idiots who are totally out of their depth? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?"
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it."
Very likely, but that's won't be great for housing shortages, builders, material suppliers, furnishers etc. Even taxes revenues will fall with no stamp duty nor taxes on the aforementioned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?"
The biggest source of potential revenue is property
Uk property (£8.7trn) is valued at more than all the uk stock markets indices (ftse alone is only £2trn), all businesses, pension funds and savings combined. It is the golden goose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it."
Maybe that's the threshold, whether it is the primary home, no CGT.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?"
I go in different directions here.
People won't move from selling to renting as that's a load more effort and may impair their ability to move up the housing chain.
But it makes the decision to upgrade harder as you'd be paying a lot more for that extra room.
Imo we need to move houses away from being seen as investments. So rather tax, let's make it less attractive for levaraged property gurus. Higher standards for landlords and tax them more. Housing, like utilities and banking, is a kind of broad public need, and those profiting from the fixed demand side should pay a premium for having that kind of market. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Very likely, but that's won't be great for housing shortages, builders, material suppliers, furnishers etc. Even taxes revenues will fall with no stamp duty nor taxes on the aforementioned."
It would kill the housing market until the next election and then be a vote winner. NOBODY who owns a home will support CGT on their primary home. It would be a completely punitive attack. I for one would definitely vote for virtually anyone who opposed it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it."
Home ownership levels have reduced
37% uk dwellings are rented.
Of the 63% that are owned primary residences, how much of that equity goes in long term care/nursing fees, reducing inheritances.
We are in changing times that this is even being discussed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Maybe that's the threshold, whether it is the primary home, no CGT.
"
That’s already the threshold. You pay CGT on second homes and investments in property (landlords)…
“For property, capital gains tax is set at 28% for higher rate taxpayers and 18% for basic rate taxpayers – this is the rate at which you will be taxed on the sale profits of your second home. If the property is not your main residence – you will be taxed on your gain, for example, the profit made on your sale.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?I go in different directions here.
People won't move from selling to renting as that's a load more effort and may impair their ability to move up the housing chain.
But it makes the decision to upgrade harder as you'd be paying a lot more for that extra room.
Imo we need to move houses away from being seen as investments. So rather tax, let's make it less attractive for levaraged property gurus. Higher standards for landlords and tax them more. Housing, like utilities and banking, is a kind of broad public need, and those profiting from the fixed demand side should pay a premium for having that kind of market. "
Or…
1. Start building council houses again.
2. Get rid of right to buy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Almost all the parties are raising taxes for the man in the street via fiscal drag.
The Tories are patting themselves on the back from saving pensioners from the cliff they have pushed them towards.
Reform have addressed it.
But if you take less tax than is in current budgets, you need a plan.
Both the Tories and reform have suggested efficiencies which get miracled up every five years. On top of cuts already budgeted.
So in reality there are either cuts or tax raises. Whatever the colour.
This is why we are direly in need of politicians who honestly tell people that the welfare system is just isn't sustainable anymore and hard compromises are to he made. Collecting more tax wouldn't fix the welfare system either.but where ?
I'm struggling to find up to date numbers in the splits, but it feels like their is a disconnect between the big spends and the headline groups people go after.
"
"Where?" is the question I want politicians to address directly. All parties say they can solve the problem while suggesting "solutions" which clearly aren't going to solve this.
For a society to be economically sustain itself, you need enough number of people producing enough goods and services for the people to consume. In a society where the proportion of working people goes down, you will face scarcity. The rise in cost is just a symptom of this scarcity. Collecting more tax and spending wouldn't solve the problem of scarcity.
If Tories are going to tell me that pension is more important, I want them to admit that it comes at cost of other welfare services. If Labour is going to say they will invest more on NHS, I want them to be honest and tell me what other system is going to be depriorised for this. This honesty is what's lacking from all the parties today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Home ownership levels have reduced
37% uk dwellings are rented.
Of the 63% that are owned primary residences, how much of that equity goes in long term care/nursing fees, reducing inheritances.
We are in changing times that this is even being discussed. "
Absolutely. Putting CGT on primary home would be disastrous and a definite vote loser. For most people their home is really their only asset. If they get ill/old and go into care it funds this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?I go in different directions here.
People won't move from selling to renting as that's a load more effort and may impair their ability to move up the housing chain.
But it makes the decision to upgrade harder as you'd be paying a lot more for that extra room.
Imo we need to move houses away from being seen as investments. So rather tax, let's make it less attractive for levaraged property gurus. Higher standards for landlords and tax them more. Housing, like utilities and banking, is a kind of broad public need, and those profiting from the fixed demand side should pay a premium for having that kind of market. "
Section 24 hit landlords with mortgages, 70% increase in buy to let mortgages for incorporated landlords. All that tax revenue has moved into incorporated structures.
Do you think labour will look at the substantial amount of recent (post S24) incorporations as a source of revenue
Easy to change the tax rate on incorporated SIC codes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Labour have spent a year telling us the Tories have overseen the largest tax burden in history.
What will be their line when they increase it further?"
We had no choice because the Tories have said (but not been stupid enough to put it in writing) “there’s no money” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Home ownership levels have reduced
37% uk dwellings are rented.
Of the 63% that are owned primary residences, how much of that equity goes in long term care/nursing fees, reducing inheritances.
We are in changing times that this is even being discussed.
Absolutely. Putting CGT on primary home would be disastrous and a definite vote loser. For most people their home is really their only asset. If they get ill/old and go into care it funds this. "
As I write this, sat in the garden of a bungalow sold for £230k four years ago, all the equity / sale proceeds were paid to the nursing home next door where the previous now deceased owner spent the last 8 years of his life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Home ownership levels have reduced
37% uk dwellings are rented.
Of the 63% that are owned primary residences, how much of that equity goes in long term care/nursing fees, reducing inheritances.
We are in changing times that this is even being discussed.
Absolutely. Putting CGT on primary home would be disastrous and a definite vote loser. For most people their home is really their only asset. If they get ill/old and go into care it funds this.
As I write this, sat in the garden of a bungalow sold for £230k four years ago, all the equity / sale proceeds were paid to the nursing home next door where the previous now deceased owner spent the last 8 years of his life. "
So in that basis a primary home is not an investment that can be liquidised to fund a more comfortable retirement (by downsizing) or be passed on to kids, but is in fact an insurance policy to pay for your future care needs without being a burden on the state.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour have spent a year telling us the Tories have overseen the largest tax burden in history.
What will be their line when they increase it further?
We had no choice because the Tories have said (but not been stupid enough to put it in writing) “there’s no money”"
And why cant they tell us that right now? Anyone who is tuned in knows it anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Labour have spent a year telling us the Tories have overseen the largest tax burden in history.
What will be their line when they increase it further?
We had no choice because the Tories have said (but not been stupid enough to put it in writing) “there’s no money”
And why cant they tell us that right now? Anyone who is tuned in knows it anyway. "
I agree but who would? Both main parties are terrified of the truth. All they want is power. Otherwise Labour would be talking about the damage inflicted by Brexit but they are shit scared they will not get the red wall back!
The smaller parties can afford to be brave/more honest and true to their ideology because they know they won’t be the next Govt. They have everything to gain from honest straight talking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour have spent a year telling us the Tories have overseen the largest tax burden in history.
What will be their line when they increase it further?
We had no choice because the Tories have said (but not been stupid enough to put it in writing) “there’s no money”
And why cant they tell us that right now? Anyone who is tuned in knows it anyway.
I agree but who would? Both main parties are terrified of the truth. All they want is power. Otherwise Labour would be talking about the damage inflicted by Brexit but they are shit scared they will not get the red wall back!
The smaller parties can afford to be brave/more honest and true to their ideology because they know they won’t be the next Govt. They have everything to gain from honest straight talking. "
I get what you're saying but then ask yourself why such voter apathy in this country? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Labour have spent a year telling us the Tories have overseen the largest tax burden in history.
What will be their line when they increase it further?
We had no choice because the Tories have said (but not been stupid enough to put it in writing) “there’s no money”
And why cant they tell us that right now? Anyone who is tuned in knows it anyway.
I agree but who would? Both main parties are terrified of the truth. All they want is power. Otherwise Labour would be talking about the damage inflicted by Brexit but they are shit scared they will not get the red wall back!
The smaller parties can afford to be brave/more honest and true to their ideology because they know they won’t be the next Govt. They have everything to gain from honest straight talking.
I get what you're saying but then ask yourself why such voter apathy in this country?"
I don’t have to ask I can see/sense/feel it!
It’s another reason I support PR. It means every vote counts. It means you are far more likely to have your views represented in Parliament. It means parties can stay true (truer) to their ideology and people actually know what they are voting for! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour have spent a year telling us the Tories have overseen the largest tax burden in history.
What will be their line when they increase it further?
We had no choice because the Tories have said (but not been stupid enough to put it in writing) “there’s no money”
And why cant they tell us that right now? Anyone who is tuned in knows it anyway.
I agree but who would? Both main parties are terrified of the truth. All they want is power. Otherwise Labour would be talking about the damage inflicted by Brexit but they are shit scared they will not get the red wall back!
The smaller parties can afford to be brave/more honest and true to their ideology because they know they won’t be the next Govt. They have everything to gain from honest straight talking.
I get what you're saying but then ask yourself why such voter apathy in this country?
I don’t have to ask I can see/sense/feel it!
It’s another reason I support PR. It means every vote counts. It means you are far more likely to have your views represented in Parliament. It means parties can stay true (truer) to their ideology and people actually know what they are voting for!"
I should have written 'ask yourself', I know you're fully aware  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine a old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them."
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take …. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take …."
Wait until Labour puts an end to the era of Tory “austerity”! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take ….
Wait until Labour puts an end to the era of Tory “austerity”!"
It would appear that Labour have s going tk try its hardest to continue it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take …."
And hundreds of billions in mortgage payments made to banks to use for investment in fossil fuels, money laundering etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
And another thing re CGT on a primary home…
For decades successive Conservative AND Labour governments have pushed and incentivised people to but their own home. Evangelised the benefits of owning a home and being in debt to banks for many years of your life. So to now see homeowners as a potential cash cow would be just about the most cynical action by a British Govt ever.
I think it would be enough of an issue to cause unrest, bigger even than the Poll Tax. Whoever had the brass balls (and shit for brains) who introduced it would be out of govt for a generation or more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And another thing re CGT on a primary home…
For decades successive Conservative AND Labour governments have pushed and incentivised people to but their own home. Evangelised the benefits of owning a home and being in debt to banks for many years of your life. So to now see homeowners as a potential cash cow would be just about the most cynical action by a British Govt ever.
I think it would be enough of an issue to cause unrest, bigger even than the Poll Tax. Whoever had the brass balls (and shit for brains) who introduced it would be out of govt for a generation or more."
There is already means tested old age/social care, and the current IHT threshold is within 10% or so of the average house value.
Those with the broadest shoulders and all that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And another thing re CGT on a primary home…
For decades successive Conservative AND Labour governments have pushed and incentivised people to but their own home. Evangelised the benefits of owning a home and being in debt to banks for many years of your life. So to now see homeowners as a potential cash cow would be just about the most cynical action by a British Govt ever.
I think it would be enough of an issue to cause unrest, bigger even than the Poll Tax. Whoever had the brass balls (and shit for brains) who introduced it would be out of govt for a generation or more."
There is already means tested old age/social care, and the current IHT threshold is within 10% or so of the average house value.
Those with the broadest shoulders and all that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"And another thing re CGT on a primary home…
For decades successive Conservative AND Labour governments have pushed and incentivised people to but their own home. Evangelised the benefits of owning a home and being in debt to banks for many years of your life. So to now see homeowners as a potential cash cow would be just about the most cynical action by a British Govt ever.
I think it would be enough of an issue to cause unrest, bigger even than the Poll Tax. Whoever had the brass balls (and shit for brains) who introduced it would be out of govt for a generation or more.
There is already means tested old age/social care, and the current IHT threshold is within 10% or so of the average house value.
Those with the broadest shoulders and all that.
"
the residence nil rate band itself is 175k. A husband and wife can get to a combined IHT free estate of 1m of which 350 is residence. As estates go, 1m a couple is quite generous and why only a handful of estates have iht bills. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
What have labour actually said here ?
I've seen quotes that say labour haven't ruled out cgt increases.
And then some people say that the labour manifesto didn't explicitly rule out cgt on primary Res. But is this Tory game playing ? Was it on the table for Tories in 2019? Do we have to conclude anything not rules out isn't in?
Unless ive missed something, this has a whiff of whipped up frenzy by the telegraph and times. As it's the kind of thing that Labour voters will desert over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 3 weeks ago
Brighton |
"What have labour actually said here ?
I've seen quotes that say labour haven't ruled out cgt increases.
And then some people say that the labour manifesto didn't explicitly rule out cgt on primary Res. But is this Tory game playing ? Was it on the table for Tories in 2019? Do we have to conclude anything not rules out isn't in?
Unless ive missed something, this has a whiff of whipped up frenzy by the telegraph and times. As it's the kind of thing that Labour voters will desert over. "
No AFAIK this is just us on here discussing it. Labour were specific about not increasing three key taxes. Generally that means anything else could be on the table in future. Some will more controversial than others, I’d say CGT on primary home probably tops that list (or very near top). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Nigel Farage says he is ‘leader of the opposition’ after Reform UK poll boost
“The election is over. Labour has won … But perhaps more importantly who is going to be the opposition voice to Labour in the House of Commons and in the country? I’m putting it to you that I believe that I can be that voice of opposition.”
Nigel Farage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take …."
As well as what you have quoted and before inheritance tax which looks set to increase, you will be relieved of some of your pension and if you also want to build up savings in ISA that is another target. Basically if you strive to succeed and do the right thing, they will take it from you. Choking people's finances is going to make economic growth harder and they seem to be relying on that a lot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take ….
As well as what you have quoted and before inheritance tax which looks set to increase, you will be relieved of some of your pension and if you also want to build up savings in ISA that is another target. Basically if you strive to succeed and do the right thing, they will take it from you. Choking people's finances is going to make economic growth harder and they seem to be relying on that a lot "
are ISAs in the firing line?
I'm not a fan of the lifetime allowance. But I probably would change some of the tax rules on inheritance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take ….
As well as what you have quoted and before inheritance tax which looks set to increase, you will be relieved of some of your pension and if you also want to build up savings in ISA that is another target. Basically if you strive to succeed and do the right thing, they will take it from you. Choking people's finances is going to make economic growth harder and they seem to be relying on that a lot are ISAs in the firing line?
I'm not a fan of the lifetime allowance. But I probably would change some of the tax rules on inheritance. "
There is speculation on an ISA lifetime gap - possibly at £100k. One way or the other we can expect stealth taxes from Labour, and they'll go for assets, be it savings or property. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take ….
As well as what you have quoted and before inheritance tax which looks set to increase, you will be relieved of some of your pension and if you also want to build up savings in ISA that is another target. Basically if you strive to succeed and do the right thing, they will take it from you. Choking people's finances is going to make economic growth harder and they seem to be relying on that a lot are ISAs in the firing line?
I'm not a fan of the lifetime allowance. But I probably would change some of the tax rules on inheritance.
There is speculation on an ISA lifetime gap - possibly at £100k. One way or the other we can expect stealth taxes from Labour, and they'll go for assets, be it savings or property."
any credible speculation ? I get the sense this is the current attack line, to spook. Especially when talking about isa and cgt on personal residences, playing in spaces that affect the common man. Despite that being very unlabour. Imo they are more likely to go for cgt rates (not change what it applies to). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm watching starmer right now and I struggle to believe a word he's saying. EG 10,000 extra teachers sounds very impressive but it equates to 1/3 of a teacher per school...and he says he hasn't broken it down that far. Totally disingenuous. Not that any of the others are are different but let's not pretend that people are flocking to labour, they just deserting the Tories |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"I'm watching starmer right now and I struggle to believe a word he's saying. EG 10,000 extra teachers sounds very impressive but it equates to 1/3 of a teacher per school...and he says he hasn't broken it down that far. Totally disingenuous. Not that any of the others are are different but let's not pretend that people are flocking to labour, they just deserting the Tories "
they know they have this in the bag and needn't over promise to win votes.
That said I've been disappointed somewhat in how he's been answering questions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm watching starmer right now and I struggle to believe a word he's saying. EG 10,000 extra teachers sounds very impressive but it equates to 1/3 of a teacher per school...and he says he hasn't broken it down that far. Totally disingenuous. Not that any of the others are are different but let's not pretend that people are flocking to labour, they just deserting the Tories they know they have this in the bag and needn't over promise to win votes.
That said I've been disappointed somewhat in how he's been answering questions. "
Agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Maybe that's the threshold, whether it is the primary home, no CGT.
That’s already the threshold. You pay CGT on second homes and investments in property (landlords)…
“For property, capital gains tax is set at 28% for higher rate taxpayers and 18% for basic rate taxpayers – this is the rate at which you will be taxed on the sale profits of your second home. If the property is not your main residence – you will be taxed on your gain, for example, the profit made on your sale.”"
Thank you. I wasn't aware. And unlikely to ever have an extra property. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 3 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Maybe that's the threshold, whether it is the primary home, no CGT.
That’s already the threshold. You pay CGT on second homes and investments in property (landlords)…
“For property, capital gains tax is set at 28% for higher rate taxpayers and 18% for basic rate taxpayers – this is the rate at which you will be taxed on the sale profits of your second home. If the property is not your main residence – you will be taxed on your gain, for example, the profit made on your sale.”
Thank you. I wasn't aware. And unlikely to ever have an extra property."
be careful of you get married. Don't want the Tories after you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Home ownership levels have reduced
37% uk dwellings are rented.
Of the 63% that are owned primary residences, how much of that equity goes in long term care/nursing fees, reducing inheritances.
We are in changing times that this is even being discussed.
Absolutely. Putting CGT on primary home would be disastrous and a definite vote loser. For most people their home is really their only asset. If they get ill/old and go into care it funds this.
As I write this, sat in the garden of a bungalow sold for £230k four years ago, all the equity / sale proceeds were paid to the nursing home next door where the previous now deceased owner spent the last 8 years of his life.
So in that basis a primary home is not an investment that can be liquidised to fund a more comfortable retirement (by downsizing) or be passed on to kids, but is in fact an insurance policy to pay for your future care needs without being a burden on the state.
"
You're currently allowed help to pay for care if you have £23,000. Next October it goes up to £100,000. So there is a chance of inheritance for the children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They will raise taxes on Capital gains, fuel duty, coucil tax but didnt want to mention it
CGT will definitely be expanded. Rayner has refused to rule out CGT on house sales, so we can assume it's under consideration. But what impact would that have on the house market and all that flows from it?
If any govt put CGT on sale of primary home then people will sit tight for 4-5 years and then vote them out for the party that says they will remove it.
Maybe that's the threshold, whether it is the primary home, no CGT.
That’s already the threshold. You pay CGT on second homes and investments in property (landlords)…
“For property, capital gains tax is set at 28% for higher rate taxpayers and 18% for basic rate taxpayers – this is the rate at which you will be taxed on the sale profits of your second home. If the property is not your main residence – you will be taxed on your gain, for example, the profit made on your sale.”
Thank you. I wasn't aware. And unlikely to ever have an extra property.be careful of you get married. Don't want the Tories after you. "
Maybe I will get another property  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Jeremy Hunt reduced CGT on property sales for higher earners from 28% to 24% in the March Budget, but left the rate at 18% for lower earners.
If labour increased CGT on second property sales from 24% and 18% to 40% and 20% would that really be a major upset for anyone?
Also CGT liability ceases on death, and IHT is already 40%.
Thanks to the Tories our national debt is now £100,000 per household and still rising.
Time to get real about tax rises to come whoever wins? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take ….
As well as what you have quoted and before inheritance tax which looks set to increase, you will be relieved of some of your pension and if you also want to build up savings in ISA that is another target. Basically if you strive to succeed and do the right thing, they will take it from you. Choking people's finances is going to make economic growth harder and they seem to be relying on that a lot are ISAs in the firing line?
I'm not a fan of the lifetime allowance. But I probably would change some of the tax rules on inheritance. "
Everything is in the firing line apart (maybe) than income tax, NI and VAT. However they say no return to austerity which is positive though also won't rule out cuts to services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CGT on a house sale would be a ridiculously stupid move. Imagine an old couple whose children have moved out. They could sell their bigger home and downsize for more money. This money can be useful for their expenses and also a bigger house is available in the market for other people. This is good behaviour and we need to incentivise this. Not punish this by forcing taxes on them.
It’s amazing isn’t it?
Tax you on your wages before any mortgage payments are made, VAT on the products and services needed to move home, council tax, stamp duty for having the audacity to want to buy a house in the first place and now an idea to take a cut of the money made on the sale.
Oh and don’t go dying because Inheritance is what the government want.
It is an absolute piss take ….
As well as what you have quoted and before inheritance tax which looks set to increase, you will be relieved of some of your pension and if you also want to build up savings in ISA that is another target. Basically if you strive to succeed and do the right thing, they will take it from you. Choking people's finances is going to make economic growth harder and they seem to be relying on that a lot are ISAs in the firing line?
I'm not a fan of the lifetime allowance. But I probably would change some of the tax rules on inheritance.
Everything is in the firing line apart (maybe) than income tax, NI and VAT. However they say no return to austerity which is positive though also won't rule out cuts to services. "
They also say they're helping the workers yet happy to tax the rich, most of which are workers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Everything is in the firing line apart (maybe) than income tax, NI and VAT. However they say no return to austerity which is positive though also won't rule out cuts to services. "
Uk GDP is £3.1trn
Treasury income £1.1trn
35% of everything is tax already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Everything is in the firing line apart (maybe) than income tax, NI and VAT. However they say no return to austerity which is positive though also won't rule out cuts to services.
Uk GDP is £3.1trn
Treasury income £1.1trn
35% of everything is tax already. "
Indeed and set to increase still further. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year."
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned."
I agree. Living in 'hunting country' I feel neutral on the topic. Live and let live. But can't help feeling Labour are just doing this for supposed class reasons. (In actual fact the hunt is pretty classless). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
“Starmer told reporters on a visit to a hospital in Worksop, Nottinghamshire, on Saturday:
“This was just a desperate story by the Tories in relation to capital gains tax on primary residences.”
He added: “There was never a policy so it doesn’t need ruling out, but let’s rule it out in case anybody pretends that it was.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned."
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 2 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy."
politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa. "
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 2 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa.
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology."
unis don't have private v public funded balance to worry about.
You can argue if the finances stack up... I'd argue much of the money parents are now "saving" from sending their kids to state school will be spent elsewhere (sky  ) so attract VAT... And also wonder if the marginal cost per new student is the same as the average... But that doesn't mean my views come from envy.
I could be convinced by a full cost benefit analysis that debates all the sides. Including the losses to the tax payers from target teachers (including the start of their career) and my other points. And we can factor in bursaries (although I'd see this in part being tax subsidised if they dry up if vat is added).
Indeed IFS has done something lighter and estimate a £1bn pa net gain.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa.
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology.unis don't have private v public funded balance to worry about.
You can argue if the finances stack up... I'd argue much of the money parents are now "saving" from sending their kids to state school will be spent elsewhere (sky ) so attract VAT... And also wonder if the marginal cost per new student is the same as the average... But that doesn't mean my views come from envy.
I could be convinced by a full cost benefit analysis that debates all the sides. Including the losses to the tax payers from target teachers (including the start of their career) and my other points. And we can factor in bursaries (although I'd see this in part being tax subsidised if they dry up if vat is added).
Indeed IFS has done something lighter and estimate a £1bn pa net gain.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
"
The IFS study is flawed as they did not actually undertake qualitative research with parents. It is based on flawed assumptions.
My issue is why always take a punitive approach? The premise for this is that “private schools are not charities”. So why not instead set a minimum threshold of charitable activity to retain charity status. ie a minimum quota of bursaries and scholarships that are means tested to increase the number of kids from lower/lower-middle incomes thus increasing diversity. All the private schools I know of make their facilities available free of charge to local state schools and local community. Sounds pretty charitable to me!
There is the unintended consequences too.
Those middle income families who just manage to pay the fees (often in receipt of scholarships to reduce cost) will no longer be able to afford.
They will move back into state. However, their finances will see them buying up houses in catchments of the best schools, increasing house prices that will see poorer families priced out of the best schools. This will not level up it will create a two-tier state system.
They will also use their money to pay for additional tuition ensuring their kids get best results in turn improving the results of their school making it continue to be the catchment area they want to live in this increasing house prices ad infinitum!
In the meantime the very wealthy will be annoyed but absorb the 20% and private schools will become increasingly elite and the preserve of the rich.
I predict a net loss or very small net gain at best but in the meantime the size of state school classes will actually increase and Labour won’t actually be able to afford another 6,500 teachers (and has anyone asked where these teachers are coming from? Are they just sitting around waiting for this opportunity).
The rich kids won’t be affected. The talented kids and kids with some level of special needs who are on scholarships and/or bursaries are the ones who will suffer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa.
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology.unis don't have private v public funded balance to worry about.
You can argue if the finances stack up... I'd argue much of the money parents are now "saving" from sending their kids to state school will be spent elsewhere (sky ) so attract VAT... And also wonder if the marginal cost per new student is the same as the average... But that doesn't mean my views come from envy.
I could be convinced by a full cost benefit analysis that debates all the sides. Including the losses to the tax payers from target teachers (including the start of their career) and my other points. And we can factor in bursaries (although I'd see this in part being tax subsidised if they dry up if vat is added).
Indeed IFS has done something lighter and estimate a £1bn pa net gain.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
The IFS study is flawed as they did not actually undertake qualitative research with parents. It is based on flawed assumptions.
My issue is why always take a punitive approach? The premise for this is that “private schools are not charities”. So why not instead set a minimum threshold of charitable activity to retain charity status. ie a minimum quota of bursaries and scholarships that are means tested to increase the number of kids from lower/lower-middle incomes thus increasing diversity. All the private schools I know of make their facilities available free of charge to local state schools and local community. Sounds pretty charitable to me!
There is the unintended consequences too.
Those middle income families who just manage to pay the fees (often in receipt of scholarships to reduce cost) will no longer be able to afford.
They will move back into state. However, their finances will see them buying up houses in catchments of the best schools, increasing house prices that will see poorer families priced out of the best schools. This will not level up it will create a two-tier state system.
They will also use their money to pay for additional tuition ensuring their kids get best results in turn improving the results of their school making it continue to be the catchment area they want to live in this increasing house prices ad infinitum!
In the meantime the very wealthy will be annoyed but absorb the 20% and private schools will become increasingly elite and the preserve of the rich.
I predict a net loss or very small net gain at best but in the meantime the size of state school classes will actually increase and Labour won’t actually be able to afford another 6,500 teachers (and has anyone asked where these teachers are coming from? Are they just sitting around waiting for this opportunity).
The rich kids won’t be affected. The talented kids and kids with some level of special needs who are on scholarships and/or bursaries are the ones who will suffer."
As you say it won’t affect rich people, it will only affect poor people who make sacrifices to send their kids to school. Labour may or may not get extra cash from the exercise, but that’s not really the purpose anyway.
Like fox hunting it’s easy to hit something that’s a minority interest as a way of throwing some read meat to your green-eyed monstered supporters.
The problem is also of course that once the policy is enacted the Tories when in power again will never have the guts to reverse it, as they are too petrified of being seen as “elitist”.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa.
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology.unis don't have private v public funded balance to worry about.
You can argue if the finances stack up... I'd argue much of the money parents are now "saving" from sending their kids to state school will be spent elsewhere (sky ) so attract VAT... And also wonder if the marginal cost per new student is the same as the average... But that doesn't mean my views come from envy.
I could be convinced by a full cost benefit analysis that debates all the sides. Including the losses to the tax payers from target teachers (including the start of their career) and my other points. And we can factor in bursaries (although I'd see this in part being tax subsidised if they dry up if vat is added).
Indeed IFS has done something lighter and estimate a £1bn pa net gain.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
The IFS study is flawed as they did not actually undertake qualitative research with parents. It is based on flawed assumptions.
My issue is why always take a punitive approach? The premise for this is that “private schools are not charities”. So why not instead set a minimum threshold of charitable activity to retain charity status. ie a minimum quota of bursaries and scholarships that are means tested to increase the number of kids from lower/lower-middle incomes thus increasing diversity. All the private schools I know of make their facilities available free of charge to local state schools and local community. Sounds pretty charitable to me!
There is the unintended consequences too.
Those middle income families who just manage to pay the fees (often in receipt of scholarships to reduce cost) will no longer be able to afford.
They will move back into state. However, their finances will see them buying up houses in catchments of the best schools, increasing house prices that will see poorer families priced out of the best schools. This will not level up it will create a two-tier state system.
They will also use their money to pay for additional tuition ensuring their kids get best results in turn improving the results of their school making it continue to be the catchment area they want to live in this increasing house prices ad infinitum!
In the meantime the very wealthy will be annoyed but absorb the 20% and private schools will become increasingly elite and the preserve of the rich.
I predict a net loss or very small net gain at best but in the meantime the size of state school classes will actually increase and Labour won’t actually be able to afford another 6,500 teachers (and has anyone asked where these teachers are coming from? Are they just sitting around waiting for this opportunity).
The rich kids won’t be affected. The talented kids and kids with some level of special needs who are on scholarships and/or bursaries are the ones who will suffer.
As you say it won’t affect rich people, it will only affect poor people who make sacrifices to send their kids to school. Labour may or may not get extra cash from the exercise, but that’s not really the purpose anyway.
Like fox hunting it’s easy to hit something that’s a minority interest as a way of throwing some read meat to your green-eyed monstered supporters.
The problem is also of course that once the policy is enacted the Tories when in power again will never have the guts to reverse it, as they are too petrified of being seen as “elitist”.
"
Hell just froze over again  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I would have excelled with a scholarship but they weren't exactly advertised."
Where I live the pvt schools actively promote opportunities, including via outreach into state primary schools. One school in particular has a high proportion of kids from “normal income families” in receipt of scholarships and/or bursaries. It keeps it more grounded and real for all. That will change and the school will either close down or will have to focus on the wealthier parents/kids only.
I know this first hand. That is why I do not accept the IFS findings. They are a pure quantitative bean counting exercise with no qualitative research to balance skewed findings. Nobody has actually asked parents what they will do!
In Brighton & Hove the state senior schools are pretty bad. Many parents have felt they had no choice but to remortgage etc and fund a private place. Many of these state schools are saying they have no places to accept kids exiting private schools.
It will vary across the country but, for example, in Edinburgh 26% of kids attend private school vs national average of 6%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have excelled with a scholarship but they weren't exactly advertised.
Where I live the pvt schools actively promote opportunities, including via outreach into state primary schools. One school in particular has a high proportion of kids from “normal income families” in receipt of scholarships and/or bursaries. It keeps it more grounded and real for all. That will change and the school will either close down or will have to focus on the wealthier parents/kids only.
I know this first hand. That is why I do not accept the IFS findings. They are a pure quantitative bean counting exercise with no qualitative research to balance skewed findings. Nobody has actually asked parents what they will do!
In Brighton & Hove the state senior schools are pretty bad. Many parents have felt they had no choice but to remortgage etc and fund a private place. Many of these state schools are saying they have no places to accept kids exiting private schools.
It will vary across the country but, for example, in Edinburgh 26% of kids attend private school vs national average of 6%. "
We could have sent our daughter to private school, and could (just about with sacrifices) have afforded it.
We didn't, and sent her to the local comprehensive school - which had "requires improvement" Ofsted rating.
Why did we do that? Although private school does add some people skills over and above those gained in the local school the sacrifices were too great. We couldn't have had the long holidays etc. we had, which gave an alternative view on life. Also, it was only GCSE therefore it was easy enough for me to teach the bits the school didn't. She obtained grades which put her in the top approx. 0.5% of all entrants, however they were educated.
We again looked at private school for A Levels and decided against it.
With 20% VAT added, there wouldn't even have been a consideration as we couldn't have afforded it. As for bursaries, we are just above the income level to qualify.
Similarly, my brother sends his kids to private school but would struggle with the VAT added. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I would have excelled with a scholarship but they weren't exactly advertised.
Where I live the pvt schools actively promote opportunities, including via outreach into state primary schools. One school in particular has a high proportion of kids from “normal income families” in receipt of scholarships and/or bursaries. It keeps it more grounded and real for all. That will change and the school will either close down or will have to focus on the wealthier parents/kids only.
I know this first hand. That is why I do not accept the IFS findings. They are a pure quantitative bean counting exercise with no qualitative research to balance skewed findings. Nobody has actually asked parents what they will do!
In Brighton & Hove the state senior schools are pretty bad. Many parents have felt they had no choice but to remortgage etc and fund a private place. Many of these state schools are saying they have no places to accept kids exiting private schools.
It will vary across the country but, for example, in Edinburgh 26% of kids attend private school vs national average of 6%.
We could have sent our daughter to private school, and could (just about with sacrifices) have afforded it.
We didn't, and sent her to the local comprehensive school - which had "requires improvement" Ofsted rating.
Why did we do that? Although private school does add some people skills over and above those gained in the local school the sacrifices were too great. We couldn't have had the long holidays etc. we had, which gave an alternative view on life. Also, it was only GCSE therefore it was easy enough for me to teach the bits the school didn't. She obtained grades which put her in the top approx. 0.5% of all entrants, however they were educated.
We again looked at private school for A Levels and decided against it.
With 20% VAT added, there wouldn't even have been a consideration as we couldn't have afforded it. As for bursaries, we are just above the income level to qualify.
Similarly, my brother sends his kids to private school but would struggle with the VAT added."
I also think it depends on the child. Cream always rises to the top. Smart kids will still be smart. The stars get teacher’s attention. Thick kids (sorry if that offends) or disruptive kids always get the most attention. It is all those in the middle that get failed by an overstretched state system. Who may not reach their potential. Some of those are currently lucky enough to get scholarships and/or bursaries (not enough, should be more IMO) but they will be lose this under the Labour proposal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have excelled with a scholarship but they weren't exactly advertised.
Where I live the pvt schools actively promote opportunities, including via outreach into state primary schools. One school in particular has a high proportion of kids from “normal income families” in receipt of scholarships and/or bursaries. It keeps it more grounded and real for all. That will change and the school will either close down or will have to focus on the wealthier parents/kids only.
I know this first hand. That is why I do not accept the IFS findings. They are a pure quantitative bean counting exercise with no qualitative research to balance skewed findings. Nobody has actually asked parents what they will do!
In Brighton & Hove the state senior schools are pretty bad. Many parents have felt they had no choice but to remortgage etc and fund a private place. Many of these state schools are saying they have no places to accept kids exiting private schools.
It will vary across the country but, for example, in Edinburgh 26% of kids attend private school vs national average of 6%.
We could have sent our daughter to private school, and could (just about with sacrifices) have afforded it.
We didn't, and sent her to the local comprehensive school - which had "requires improvement" Ofsted rating.
Why did we do that? Although private school does add some people skills over and above those gained in the local school the sacrifices were too great. We couldn't have had the long holidays etc. we had, which gave an alternative view on life. Also, it was only GCSE therefore it was easy enough for me to teach the bits the school didn't. She obtained grades which put her in the top approx. 0.5% of all entrants, however they were educated.
We again looked at private school for A Levels and decided against it.
With 20% VAT added, there wouldn't even have been a consideration as we couldn't have afforded it. As for bursaries, we are just above the income level to qualify.
Similarly, my brother sends his kids to private school but would struggle with the VAT added.
I also think it depends on the child. Cream always rises to the top. Smart kids will still be smart. The stars get teacher’s attention. Thick kids (sorry if that offends) or disruptive kids always get the most attention. It is all those in the middle that get failed by an overstretched state system. Who may not reach their potential. Some of those are currently lucky enough to get scholarships and/or bursaries (not enough, should be more IMO) but they will be lose this under the Labour proposal."
It also depends on the child’s personality. Some children will do better in smaller classes and with more attention simply because they are timid etc.
I have friends who send a child to private school because their other child is disabled. They inevitably spend so much time focused on the disabled child that they wanted to be sure that the other child had plenty of opportunities that they were concerned that they could not provide because their attention has necessarily been diverted. They aren’t rich by any means. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 2 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa.
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology.unis don't have private v public funded balance to worry about.
You can argue if the finances stack up... I'd argue much of the money parents are now "saving" from sending their kids to state school will be spent elsewhere (sky ) so attract VAT... And also wonder if the marginal cost per new student is the same as the average... But that doesn't mean my views come from envy.
I could be convinced by a full cost benefit analysis that debates all the sides. Including the losses to the tax payers from target teachers (including the start of their career) and my other points. And we can factor in bursaries (although I'd see this in part being tax subsidised if they dry up if vat is added).
Indeed IFS has done something lighter and estimate a £1bn pa net gain.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
The IFS study is flawed as they did not actually undertake qualitative research with parents. It is based on flawed assumptions.
My issue is why always take a punitive approach? The premise for this is that “private schools are not charities”. So why not instead set a minimum threshold of charitable activity to retain charity status. ie a minimum quota of bursaries and scholarships that are means tested to increase the number of kids from lower/lower-middle incomes thus increasing diversity. All the private schools I know of make their facilities available free of charge to local state schools and local community. Sounds pretty charitable to me!
There is the unintended consequences too.
Those middle income families who just manage to pay the fees (often in receipt of scholarships to reduce cost) will no longer be able to afford.
They will move back into state. However, their finances will see them buying up houses in catchments of the best schools, increasing house prices that will see poorer families priced out of the best schools. This will not level up it will create a two-tier state system.
They will also use their money to pay for additional tuition ensuring their kids get best results in turn improving the results of their school making it continue to be the catchment area they want to live in this increasing house prices ad infinitum!
In the meantime the very wealthy will be annoyed but absorb the 20% and private schools will become increasingly elite and the preserve of the rich.
I predict a net loss or very small net gain at best but in the meantime the size of state school classes will actually increase and Labour won’t actually be able to afford another 6,500 teachers (and has anyone asked where these teachers are coming from? Are they just sitting around waiting for this opportunity).
The rich kids won’t be affected. The talented kids and kids with some level of special needs who are on scholarships and/or bursaries are the ones who will suffer."
you raise good points, but I'd also suggest that polling parents has its flaws (we don't always act the way we say we will)... Parents may take out loans when push comes to shove, or they may choose to go to a lower priced private school rather than go state.
There other bits I don't see as being cut and dry in terms of impact. Eg if there are less private school kids then there's less need for private school teachers. There's your teacher supply. But this is why you need people to do proper modelling.
I'm not saying that the suggestion is perfect or well thought out. But it doesn't mean it comes from envy. Especially if there is some analysis that shows it's a tax benefit. (Imo ideological would be pushing for this despite costings, rather than having costings supporting it)
For me, I'm okay with private complementing state (eg school and health). But my starting point is that these shouldnt be state subsided unless it's clear there is a state benefit. I'm not convinced. If we did have vat on fees, then I'm not sure there would be public support for removing them. There would need to be a strong case that the strain it takes off state is beneficial. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have excelled with a scholarship but they weren't exactly advertised.
Where I live the pvt schools actively promote opportunities, including via outreach into state primary schools. One school in particular has a high proportion of kids from “normal income families” in receipt of scholarships and/or bursaries. It keeps it more grounded and real for all. That will change and the school will either close down or will have to focus on the wealthier parents/kids only.
I know this first hand. That is why I do not accept the IFS findings. They are a pure quantitative bean counting exercise with no qualitative research to balance skewed findings. Nobody has actually asked parents what they will do!
In Brighton & Hove the state senior schools are pretty bad. Many parents have felt they had no choice but to remortgage etc and fund a private place. Many of these state schools are saying they have no places to accept kids exiting private schools.
It will vary across the country but, for example, in Edinburgh 26% of kids attend private school vs national average of 6%.
We could have sent our daughter to private school, and could (just about with sacrifices) have afforded it.
We didn't, and sent her to the local comprehensive school - which had "requires improvement" Ofsted rating.
Why did we do that? Although private school does add some people skills over and above those gained in the local school the sacrifices were too great. We couldn't have had the long holidays etc. we had, which gave an alternative view on life. Also, it was only GCSE therefore it was easy enough for me to teach the bits the school didn't. She obtained grades which put her in the top approx. 0.5% of all entrants, however they were educated.
We again looked at private school for A Levels and decided against it.
With 20% VAT added, there wouldn't even have been a consideration as we couldn't have afforded it. As for bursaries, we are just above the income level to qualify.
Similarly, my brother sends his kids to private school but would struggle with the VAT added.
I also think it depends on the child. Cream always rises to the top. Smart kids will still be smart. The stars get teacher’s attention. Thick kids (sorry if that offends) or disruptive kids always get the most attention. It is all those in the middle that get failed by an overstretched state system. Who may not reach their potential. Some of those are currently lucky enough to get scholarships and/or bursaries (not enough, should be more IMO) but they will be lose this under the Labour proposal.
It also depends on the child’s personality. Some children will do better in smaller classes and with more attention simply because they are timid etc.
I have friends who send a child to private school because their other child is disabled. They inevitably spend so much time focused on the disabled child that they wanted to be sure that the other child had plenty of opportunities that they were concerned that they could not provide because their attention has necessarily been diverted. They aren’t rich by any means."
And it is these people who will be disproportionately affected by the Labour policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA Hovis OP Man 2 weeks ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"I would have excelled with a scholarship but they weren't exactly advertised.
Where I live the pvt schools actively promote opportunities, including via outreach into state primary schools. One school in particular has a high proportion of kids from “normal income families” in receipt of scholarships and/or bursaries. It keeps it more grounded and real for all. That will change and the school will either close down or will have to focus on the wealthier parents/kids only.
I know this first hand. That is why I do not accept the IFS findings. They are a pure quantitative bean counting exercise with no qualitative research to balance skewed findings. Nobody has actually asked parents what they will do!
In Brighton & Hove the state senior schools are pretty bad. Many parents have felt they had no choice but to remortgage etc and fund a private place. Many of these state schools are saying they have no places to accept kids exiting private schools.
It will vary across the country but, for example, in Edinburgh 26% of kids attend private school vs national average of 6%.
We could have sent our daughter to private school, and could (just about with sacrifices) have afforded it.
We didn't, and sent her to the local comprehensive school - which had "requires improvement" Ofsted rating.
Why did we do that? Although private school does add some people skills over and above those gained in the local school the sacrifices were too great. We couldn't have had the long holidays etc. we had, which gave an alternative view on life. Also, it was only GCSE therefore it was easy enough for me to teach the bits the school didn't. She obtained grades which put her in the top approx. 0.5% of all entrants, however they were educated.
We again looked at private school for A Levels and decided against it.
With 20% VAT added, there wouldn't even have been a consideration as we couldn't have afforded it. As for bursaries, we are just above the income level to qualify.
Similarly, my brother sends his kids to private school but would struggle with the VAT added.
I also think it depends on the child. Cream always rises to the top. Smart kids will still be smart. The stars get teacher’s attention. Thick kids (sorry if that offends) or disruptive kids always get the most attention. It is all those in the middle that get failed by an overstretched state system. Who may not reach their potential. Some of those are currently lucky enough to get scholarships and/or bursaries (not enough, should be more IMO) but they will be lose this under the Labour proposal."
it's just anecdotal, but the stars in my school had limited attention. That said I did get just enough from two teachers that made a difference. But on the whole I was as ignored as the middle kids, if not more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Economics aside, Labours manifesto includes the pledge to ban trail hunting. Just why? Is it ideological claptrap? Chaps in burgundy coats get up their nose? I don't doubt the odd fox gets killed, but then why not ban cats? The average cat kills more wildlife in a weekend than a rural hunt in a year.
If people just wanted to ride around on a horse in a red jacket and do nothing else Labour would ban it.
It’s like the school VAT policy, it’s pure class warfare, though nowadays the metropolitans doing the banning would be richer and posher than the people being banned.
Hell just froze over…totally agree with you on VAT on private schools. Pure ideological politics of envy.politics of envy could apply to high tax rates for high earners too ...
For me, I'm not against the private sector providing services that are also provided by tej public sector. Be this schools or health care.
But in these cases the private sector leeches of the tax payer (as often training is tax subsidied and the public sector provide initial jobs).
There is also a talent drain given the differences in funding which further weaken the public offering.
Therefore I don't think it's fair that the public in effect subsidises private. After all it sounds like parents who would pay 10k for a given private school, would rather send their kids to a state school, than send their kid to a school currently charging 8k pa.
Nope!
1. Every kid in private school saves taxpayers £8k per year.
2. Education is VAT exempt so will they now apply it to University?
3. If a child moves from Pvt to State then not only will the Govt lose that VAT (there is no long queue waiting to replace the vacated places), but then need to find £8k to fund child in state.
4. Once pvt schools are no longer VAT exempt then they can also start reclaiming VAT on all products and services they buy. Reducing the net VAT take further.
5. If you stop treating pvt schools as charities then they will stop acting charitably and stop offering scholarships and bursaries. This adversely impacts middle and lower income families who will gave to move back into state. The very rich will absorb making pvt sch the exclusive preserve of the rich with ever decreasing diversity.
6. This will end up costing more than it makes. That means it is purely a populist punitive policy based on ideology.unis don't have private v public funded balance to worry about.
You can argue if the finances stack up... I'd argue much of the money parents are now "saving" from sending their kids to state school will be spent elsewhere (sky ) so attract VAT... And also wonder if the marginal cost per new student is the same as the average... But that doesn't mean my views come from envy.
I could be convinced by a full cost benefit analysis that debates all the sides. Including the losses to the tax payers from target teachers (including the start of their career) and my other points. And we can factor in bursaries (although I'd see this in part being tax subsidised if they dry up if vat is added).
Indeed IFS has done something lighter and estimate a £1bn pa net gain.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending
The IFS study is flawed as they did not actually undertake qualitative research with parents. It is based on flawed assumptions.
My issue is why always take a punitive approach? The premise for this is that “private schools are not charities”. So why not instead set a minimum threshold of charitable activity to retain charity status. ie a minimum quota of bursaries and scholarships that are means tested to increase the number of kids from lower/lower-middle incomes thus increasing diversity. All the private schools I know of make their facilities available free of charge to local state schools and local community. Sounds pretty charitable to me!
There is the unintended consequences too.
Those middle income families who just manage to pay the fees (often in receipt of scholarships to reduce cost) will no longer be able to afford.
They will move back into state. However, their finances will see them buying up houses in catchments of the best schools, increasing house prices that will see poorer families priced out of the best schools. This will not level up it will create a two-tier state system.
They will also use their money to pay for additional tuition ensuring their kids get best results in turn improving the results of their school making it continue to be the catchment area they want to live in this increasing house prices ad infinitum!
In the meantime the very wealthy will be annoyed but absorb the 20% and private schools will become increasingly elite and the preserve of the rich.
I predict a net loss or very small net gain at best but in the meantime the size of state school classes will actually increase and Labour won’t actually be able to afford another 6,500 teachers (and has anyone asked where these teachers are coming from? Are they just sitting around waiting for this opportunity).
The rich kids won’t be affected. The talented kids and kids with some level of special needs who are on scholarships and/or bursaries are the ones who will suffer.you raise good points, but I'd also suggest that polling parents has its flaws (we don't always act the way we say we will)... Parents may take out loans when push comes to shove, or they may choose to go to a lower priced private school rather than go state.
There other bits I don't see as being cut and dry in terms of impact. Eg if there are less private school kids then there's less need for private school teachers. There's your teacher supply. But this is why you need people to do proper modelling.
I'm not saying that the suggestion is perfect or well thought out. But it doesn't mean it comes from envy. Especially if there is some analysis that shows it's a tax benefit. (Imo ideological would be pushing for this despite costings, rather than having costings supporting it)
For me, I'm okay with private complementing state (eg school and health). But my starting point is that these shouldnt be state subsided unless it's clear there is a state benefit. I'm not convinced. If we did have vat on fees, then I'm not sure there would be public support for removing them. There would need to be a strong case that the strain it takes off state is beneficial. "
Every child in private school saves the state £8000 a year. Unlike other arguments around “why should I pay tax for govt svcs I do not use” these children would use the state system so the annual saving per child is real and comes to over £4bn a year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 2 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
The labour manifesto states this:
Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable and will apply to every decision taken by a Labour government. This means that the current budget must move into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues and debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast"
It doesn't take a genius to workout the budget being in balance is not going to happen anytime soon, so are all of Labours plans on hold, or shall we expect some serious revenue collection to bring us to a budget in balance?
p.s. I don't think the non dom tax revenue is going to stretch to this too, but I might be wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The labour manifesto states this:
Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable and will apply to every decision taken by a Labour government. This means that the current budget must move into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues and debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast"
It doesn't take a genius to workout the budget being in balance is not going to happen anytime soon, so are all of Labours plans on hold, or shall we expect some serious revenue collection to bring us to a budget in balance?
p.s. I don't think the non dom tax revenue is going to stretch to this too, but I might be wrong "
I think we can guarantee that a Labour government is going involve:
Higher taxes
More borrowing
More money printing
More government employees
Poorer services
A stagnant economy.
So pretty much business usual. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
More on Private Schools…
“Private schools in England should be made to share their green space, say campaigners”
I say yes absolutely if you DON’T add VAT to fees. And many already do.
I say no absolutely not if do add VAT! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More on Private Schools…
“Private schools in England should be made to share their green space, say campaigners”"
An idiotic suggestion. The state schools in my area are all surrounded by 8ft high fences, with big signs warning of prosecution if you enter without written permission. Why do they think that non-state schools should be different? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"More on Private Schools…
“Private schools in England should be made to share their green space, say campaigners”
An idiotic suggestion. The state schools in my area are all surrounded by 8ft high fences, with big signs warning of prosecution if you enter without written permission. Why do they think that non-state schools should be different?"
“They” can’t have it both ways. You don’t want to treat private schools as charities and remove their VAT exemption but then want them to behave charitably and provide access to their grounds and facilities! Piss off! What next? All companies have to allow the public to wander around their HQ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 2 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"More on Private Schools…
“Private schools in England should be made to share their green space, say campaigners”
I say yes absolutely if you DON’T add VAT to fees. And many already do.
I say no absolutely not if do add VAT!"
Why should they share anything, because someone with a chip on their shoulder doesn't like choices others have made or have?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"More on Private Schools…
“Private schools in England should be made to share their green space, say campaigners”
I say yes absolutely if you DON’T add VAT to fees. And many already do.
I say no absolutely not if do add VAT!
Why should they share anything, because someone with a chip on their shoulder doesn't like choices others have made or have?
"
Many (can’t say all) private schools already share or give access to their facilities. That is part of their charitable behaviour. I support that.
But I also maintain they are charities and should remain VAT exempt. However, if “they” want to remove that then I also support the schools saying sod off to the public and saying “our parents pay fees with VAT now so they are entitled to exclusive use!”
Can’t have it both ways!
There was an interesting article this morning/yesterday on the history of these schools. I always wondered why private schools in the UK were called public schools when the public did not have ready access. It is to do with their origins as charities set up to educate the poor! This changed obviously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There was an interesting article this morning/yesterday on the history of these schools. I always wondered why private schools in the UK were called public schools when the public did not have ready access. It is to do with their origins as charities set up to educate the poor! This changed obviously."
It's from the days before state schools. Some companies and churches set up schools for the exclusive use of their employees/worshippers. These were known as 'private schools', because only certain people could apply. Schools that had no barriers other than fees were called 'public schools' because they were open to anyone.
The use of "private schools" throughout this thread has been irritating me greatly, but that's what it's like to be old-fashioned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"There was an interesting article this morning/yesterday on the history of these schools. I always wondered why private schools in the UK were called public schools when the public did not have ready access. It is to do with their origins as charities set up to educate the poor! This changed obviously.
It's from the days before state schools. Some companies and churches set up schools for the exclusive use of their employees/worshippers. These were known as 'private schools', because only certain people could apply. Schools that had no barriers other than fees were called 'public schools' because they were open to anyone.
The use of "private schools" throughout this thread has been irritating me greatly, but that's what it's like to be old-fashioned."
Ah ok that’s interesting. Although labels should change with the times I would say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
A bit more…
“Lewis Winks, from the Right to Roam campaign, said: “These findings are yet another example of the stark inequalities in access to green space across our society. It’s right that private schools make good on their charitable status by sharing these extensive green spaces with their peers. Wider reform is also needed to ensure all people are given better access to the outdoors”.
So “they” want them to be charities when it suits them! Yeah ok sure! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
