FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Off topic from brexit - education.
Off topic from brexit - education.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So, brexit gets repetitive - until the following week when another shot storm hits.
So a propose a new controversial question:
"Education: I'd it ethical, moral and practical that we still have private schools?"
I'm torn on this issue, one one hand I respect the freedom of an individual to buy their own, or improve their education.
On the other hand, according to the regulatory body, these institutions provide on average 3x the resource per student than a state school can - this is based upon the figures that the schools give, so regulators even admit, it's likely to be higher.
Data shows that parents from any income level who get their kid into a private school are around 85% less likely to back taxation increases to see state school budgets expand.
Given that the bulk of private schools are placed in the south east, and those which are not are in established middle class constituencies outside of the area, this helps create political safe seats in normal political situations.
Not to mention private schools are state subsidised yet get charitable status - yet they are clearly not charities, undermining the private business ethos.
So, everyone can now fight over this, is the status quo; acceptable, in need of reform, or should private education be restricted solely to hiring a private tutor outside of school?
Fight! I mean debate! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
My tuppence worth:
The state has a duty to provide education for every child, a place for every child.
I fully support that and I am happy to be taxed to fund that.
If parents choose not to take up that place and, say, send their child to a private school or a faith school, that is their choice.
I do not object to that choice. But neither do I think the state should make any contribution towards the cost.
If a parent wishes to opt out of state provision, that is a choice they should pay for.
And yes, it means I believe state education should be secular.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"My tuppence worth:
The state has a duty to provide education for every child, a place for every child.
I fully support that and I am happy to be taxed to fund that.
If parents choose not to take up that place and, say, send their child to a private school or a faith school, that is their choice.
I do not object to that choice. But neither do I think the state should make any contribution towards the cost.
If a parent wishes to opt out of state provision, that is a choice they should pay for.
And yes, it means I believe state education should be secular.
"
Do you not question whether the distribution and resource inequality to students, between state and private schools, actually impeds on the ability for the state to ensure your foundational years are based upon the idea of equality of opportunity? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.If someone decides not to buy a bigger house,more expensive car or not to have holidays so they can send their children to a private school why should a government stop them.They still pay their taxes like everyone else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.If someone decides not to buy a bigger house,more expensive car or not to have holidays so they can send their children to a private school why should a government stop them.They still pay their taxes like everyone else."
It's a fair point:
However, would you be happy if you had a kid going to a struggling state school, in classes of 36 pupils. Whilst 3 miles up the road a few families could afford to send their kid to a school where class sizes were down to 28, and kids had on average 3x more resources to go to their education.
Would you not feel as though it's a form of class entrapment and hinders social mobility? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.If someone decides not to buy a bigger house,more expensive car or not to have holidays so they can send their children to a private school why should a government stop them.They still pay their taxes like everyone else.
It's a fair point:
However, would you be happy if you had a kid going to a struggling state school, in classes of 36 pupils. Whilst 3 miles up the road a few families could afford to send their kid to a school where class sizes were down to 28, and kids had on average 3x more resources to go to their education.
Would you not feel as though it's a form of class entrapment and hinders social mobility?"
No because i live in the real world where life is not fair,you will always have the haves and have nots the secret is to work smart and be one of the haves.I have no jealousy of people who have more than me good luck to them.The thing to do is to make sure the state schools are not struggling,you cant bring everything down to the lowest common denominator to make things even. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
Do you not question whether the distribution and resource inequality to students, between state and private schools, actually impeds on the ability for the state to ensure your foundational years are based upon the idea of equality of opportunity?"
I believe in choice, but I do not support public money going to private schools.
If someone wants to set up a private school, and enough parents are willing to pay to make it viable, that's their choice.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"
Do you not question whether the distribution and resource inequality to students, between state and private schools, actually impeds on the ability for the state to ensure your foundational years are based upon the idea of equality of opportunity?
I believe in choice, but I do not support public money going to private schools.
If someone wants to set up a private school, and enough parents are willing to pay to make it viable, that's their choice.
"
Does public money go to private schools? i dont know much about it but cant find anywhere on the net where it says this happens in the uk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Aren't they eligible for tax relief or something as charitable bodies?
That would be a public subsidy.
I think faith schools get grants but, like you, I am not that familiar with the detail.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.If someone decides not to buy a bigger house,more expensive car or not to have holidays so they can send their children to a private school why should a government stop them.They still pay their taxes like everyone else.
It's a fair point:
However, would you be happy if you had a kid going to a struggling state school, in classes of 36 pupils. Whilst 3 miles up the road a few families could afford to send their kid to a school where class sizes were down to 28, and kids had on average 3x more resources to go to their education.
Would you not feel as though it's a form of class entrapment and hinders social mobility?No because i live in the real world where life is not fair,you will always have the haves and have nots the secret is to work smart and be one of the haves.I have no jealousy of people who have more than me good luck to them.The thing to do is to make sure the state schools are not struggling,you cant bring everything down to the lowest common denominator to make things even."
Never said anything about lowering it to a common denominator.
My view is the state schools have to be able to provide the same amount of money per student as the private schools, as sadly money equals resources.
Then it's down to the student to maximise the opportunities - eg, their teachers and educational resources.
You do seem to struggle with the concept of equality of opportunity, do you disagree with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Do you not question whether the distribution and resource inequality to students, between state and private schools, actually impeds on the ability for the state to ensure your foundational years are based upon the idea of equality of opportunity?
I believe in choice, but I do not support public money going to private schools.
If someone wants to set up a private school, and enough parents are willing to pay to make it viable, that's their choice.
Does public money go to private schools? i dont know much about it but cant find anywhere on the net where it says this happens in the uk."
It does, though not heavily.
Mr Gove actually highlighted that the biggest issues are that they still get charitable status, as listed charities; leading to tax exemptions ect - then agreed that as they no longer act as full charities to lift the poor up in a meritocratic way, they should not have this status.
But i do believe that in total they get about 550 million in subsidies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.If someone decides not to buy a bigger house,more expensive car or not to have holidays so they can send their children to a private school why should a government stop them.They still pay their taxes like everyone else.
It's a fair point:
However, would you be happy if you had a kid going to a struggling state school, in classes of 36 pupils. Whilst 3 miles up the road a few families could afford to send their kid to a school where class sizes were down to 28, and kids had on average 3x more resources to go to their education.
Would you not feel as though it's a form of class entrapment and hinders social mobility?No because i live in the real world where life is not fair,you will always have the haves and have nots the secret is to work smart and be one of the haves.I have no jealousy of people who have more than me good luck to them.The thing to do is to make sure the state schools are not struggling,you cant bring everything down to the lowest common denominator to make things even.
Never said anything about lowering it to a common denominator.
My view is the state schools have to be able to provide the same amount of money per student as the private schools, as sadly money equals resources.
Then it's down to the student to maximise the opportunities - eg, their teachers and educational resources.
You do seem to struggle with the concept of equality of opportunity, do you disagree with it."
No im sorry having trouble understanding what you are saying.But looks like to me you would like the state to pay the same amount per pupil for example a comprehensive in tottenham as Eton .Is this right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"So, brexit gets repetitive - until the following week when another shot storm hits.
So a propose a new controversial question:
"Education: I'd it ethical, moral and practical that we still have private schools?"
I'm torn on this issue, one one hand I respect the freedom of an individual to buy their own, or improve their education.
On the other hand, according to the regulatory body, these institutions provide on average 3x the resource per student than a state school can - this is based upon the figures that the schools give, so regulators even admit, it's likely to be higher.
Data shows that parents from any income level who get their kid into a private school are around 85% less likely to back taxation increases to see state school budgets expand.
Given that the bulk of private schools are placed in the south east, and those which are not are in established middle class constituencies outside of the area, this helps create political safe seats in normal political situations.
Not to mention private schools are state subsidised yet get charitable status - yet they are clearly not charities, undermining the private business ethos.
So, everyone can now fight over this, is the status quo; acceptable, in need of reform, or should private education be restricted solely to hiring a private tutor outside of school?
Fight! I mean debate!"
Firstly delighted to see a different topic so congratulations OP hope it starts a trend.
I have to be honest and say that I am at an age where I take little interest in education so can only talk from the perspective of back in my day.
I believe that education should be more specelised preparing kids for life in the real world and the right education in the areas they show aptitude.This is going back to the days of tech colleges etc so teenagers learn the skills they will need for the careers they are likely to follow.
Now by doing this the more interlectual children will follow to higher levels of learning so I guess I agree with the old grammar school system which I believed to be totally wrong when younger.
Also private schools do have a place to exept children from the less whealthy to give them the best of education.Maybe 50% of there intake paid by the government.This would in time open up society where the brightest from whatever background can get the best education possible.The people on a complete state system will get the education that is right for them.Hopefully this way society would interact a bit better and without the jealousy that I see so much sadly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would say no problem to public schools, but with a proviso.
It must be 80% for parents who pay
With a percentage of there money paying for a further 20% of the top kids from normal schools whose parents cannot afford public schools, but the childs ability does deserve the highest level of Education.
Could be 85-15 % as a minimum.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"So, brexit gets repetitive - until the following week when another shot storm hits.
So a propose a new controversial question:
"Education: I'd it ethical, moral and practical that we still have private schools?"
I'm torn on this issue, one one hand I respect the freedom of an individual to buy their own, or improve their education.
On the other hand, according to the regulatory body, these institutions provide on average 3x the resource per student than a state school can - this is based upon the figures that the schools give, so regulators even admit, it's likely to be higher.
Data shows that parents from any income level who get their kid into a private school are around 85% less likely to back taxation increases to see state school budgets expand.
Given that the bulk of private schools are placed in the south east, and those which are not are in established middle class constituencies outside of the area, this helps create political safe seats in normal political situations.
Not to mention private schools are state subsidised yet get charitable status - yet they are clearly not charities, undermining the private business ethos.
So, everyone can now fight over this, is the status quo; acceptable, in need of reform, or should private education be restricted solely to hiring a private tutor outside of school?
Fight! I mean debate!"
There is no state subsidy. There is a tax reduction due to their charitable status.
They do not make a profit so I do not see why that status should be removed. They also have to make their sports facilities available to state schools (which had them sold off years ago). Also, as the tax which would be used for education of these children is unused I'd say that it works out reasonably.
Equality of opportunity is a different topic. I would agree with several posts that shutting public schools will not impro e anything. All that will happen is that, as now, state schools in more affluent areas will raise more fund raising money from rich parents and end up with better facilities and more staff.
As ever, more needs to spent on staff and facilities such that the margin of difference that money can buy becomes negligible and just buys "exclusivity" which has no real value. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"So, brexit gets repetitive - until the following week when another shot storm hits.
So a propose a new controversial question:
"Education: I'd it ethical, moral and practical that we still have private schools?"
I'm torn on this issue, one one hand I respect the freedom of an individual to buy their own, or improve their education.
On the other hand, according to the regulatory body, these institutions provide on average 3x the resource per student than a state school can - this is based upon the figures that the schools give, so regulators even admit, it's likely to be higher.
Data shows that parents from any income level who get their kid into a private school are around 85% less likely to back taxation increases to see state school budgets expand.
Given that the bulk of private schools are placed in the south east, and those which are not are in established middle class constituencies outside of the area, this helps create political safe seats in normal political situations.
Not to mention private schools are state subsidised yet get charitable status - yet they are clearly not charities, undermining the private business ethos.
So, everyone can now fight over this, is the status quo; acceptable, in need of reform, or should private education be restricted solely to hiring a private tutor outside of school?
Fight! I mean debate!Firstly delighted to see a different topic so congratulations OP hope it starts a trend.
I have to be honest and say that I am at an age where I take little interest in education so can only talk from the perspective of back in my day.
I believe that education should be more specelised preparing kids for life in the real world and the right education in the areas they show aptitude.This is going back to the days of tech colleges etc so teenagers learn the skills they will need for the careers they are likely to follow.
Now by doing this the more interlectual children will follow to higher levels of learning so I guess I agree with the old grammar school system which I believed to be totally wrong when younger.
Also private schools do have a place to exept children from the less whealthy to give them the best of education.Maybe 50% of there intake paid by the government.This would in time open up society where the brightest from whatever background can get the best education possible.The people on a complete state system will get the education that is right for them.Hopefully this way society would interact a bit better and without the jealousy that I see so much sadly."
They do have to provide a portion of bursaries. Not sure what the current requirement is. I'm not sure that the government should pay for this though. Public money should surely be spent on the state sector.
Schools should be able to stream pupils who are more or less academic or practical so that they an develop their talents and skills appropriately. That includes sports and the arts.
That requires all schools to provide a full spectrum of subjects. Is that efficient or sustainable? Perhaps it requires joint timetables such that pupils attend more than one school depending on the resources available?
Look up Sir Ken Robinson on the Ted interview on BBC Sounds. Very interesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oghunter33Woman
over a year ago
on the hill NordWest of |
A good public school system is an investment for the future and a solid foundation for educational equality. Finland has one of the best school systems in the world and no private schools. The success of the Finish school system speaks for itself. Kids go to the nearest school available, cuts down on traffic and optimises school and spare time for each individual child. What's not to like? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"A good public school system is an investment for the future and a solid foundation for educational equality. Finland has one of the best school systems in the world and no private schools. The success of the Finish school system speaks for itself. Kids go to the nearest school available, cuts down on traffic and optimises school and spare time for each individual child. What's not to like? "
I'm always slightly baffled that we seem desperate to follow the east Asian educational model when the Scandinavian one is incredibly successful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Full disclosure:
I am the product of a (semi) private education, having attended an English 'Prep' school from age 7 to 10 and an Irish boarding school 10 to 14 before finishing my secondary education to 18 in the English state system.
I am totally in favour of there being an option of private education. Those who can afford it and have an interest in their children's education will always find a way to help those children. If necessary they will send their children to foreign schools, therefore any restriction on the availability of private education only makes such an education even more restricted to the richest and therefore more elitist. A regressive move in my opinion.
However I do believe that private education should not be subsidised in any way by the state and should in fact subsidise state education. Let me expand, private education should be liable to pay all state taxes and should not be able to claim charitable status (giving your children an expensive educational 'leg up' should not be classed as a charitable donation, nor should the school you pay for them to attend be a registered charity or be entitled to claim any state aid). Further, there should be a requirement for all private schools to offer full scholarships for the most gifted children in the country. After all if a family can afford to spend more on school fees than the person earns in a year then they can contribute a little to the education of a gifted child too, and in the process help reduce the pressure on the state system (even if it is only infinitesimally).
Just my opinion, and I am biased. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
State education - the provision of a place for every child funded by general taxation - was one of the pillars of the welfare state introduced in 1945 by the Atlee Government.
State education, social security, nationalised industry, the NHS, council housing.
The most holistic Government programme ever implemented.
For 30 years afterwards, there was a consensus between Labour and Conservative.
At elections, they tried to outdo each other with who would build more council houses, who would build more schools, more hospitals etc.
It all started to unravel in the early 1980s under Thatcherism.
Nationalised industry has gone, destroying the link between full employment and social security, council housing is a shadow of what it once was etc.
Successive Conservative administrations and Labour have gradually undone the 1945 programme.
I'm pretty sure most in the Tory Party would like to see the NHS go the same way, but they know how unpopular that would be, so it is being done by stealth.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State education - the provision of a place for every child funded by general taxation - was one of the pillars of the welfare state introduced in 1945 by the Atlee Government.
State education, social security, nationalised industry, the NHS, council housing.
The most holistic Government programme ever implemented.
For 30 years afterwards, there was a consensus between Labour and Conservative.
At elections, they tried to outdo each other with who would build more council houses, who would build more schools, more hospitals etc.
It all started to unravel in the early 1980s under Thatcherism.
Nationalised industry has gone, destroying the link between full employment and social security, council housing is a shadow of what it once was etc.
Successive Conservative administrations and Labour have gradually undone the 1945 programme.
I'm pretty sure most in the Tory Party would like to see the NHS go the same way, but they know how unpopular that would be, so it is being done by stealth.
"
With your every word. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"State education - the provision of a place for every child funded by general taxation - was one of the pillars of the welfare state introduced in 1945 by the Atlee Government.
State education, social security, nationalised industry, the NHS, council housing.
The most holistic Government programme ever implemented.
For 30 years afterwards, there was a consensus between Labour and Conservative.
At elections, they tried to outdo each other with who would build more council houses, who would build more schools, more hospitals etc.
It all started to unravel in the early 1980s under Thatcherism.
Nationalised industry has gone, destroying the link between full employment and social security, council housing is a shadow of what it once was etc.
Successive Conservative administrations and Labour have gradually undone the 1945 programme.
I'm pretty sure most in the Tory Party would like to see the NHS go the same way, but they know how unpopular that would be, so it is being done by stealth.
"
I never get this argument,why do the left think the tories would like the nhs to go? i know loads of tories and cant say i know anyone who would like to be without the nhs.I think its a myth put about by the labour party and everyone just buys into it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I never get this argument,why do the left think the tories would like the nhs to go?"
Because it is what they have been doing for the last 35 or so years. Maybe you didn;t notice but first they sold off cleaning, then eye care and hearing care followed by dental care and the hospitals (PPI was a Tory invention). Now Virgin Health is getting to buy up large slices of front-line primary care trusts. That like it or not is back-door privatisation.
"i know loads of tories and cant say i know anyone who would like to be without the nhs.I think its a myth put about by the labour party and everyone just buys into it."
Do you?
Thats interesting, because according to the Conservatives they only have 250,000 members (and many of them are dead, their memberships being paid by their estates). Now I am sure you know lots of people who vote for the Tories but that is not the same as being a Tory. Just as most of those who live around me are Labour voters but I, being a member of the Labour Party, am one of a very small number (about 60) and we are the largest party in the country, our membership being nearly as large as all the other parties combined. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
oh ok well in that case i dont know any got a few more hairs to split here if you want them.So enlighten me why do these handful of people want to destroy the nhs?.Pity your massive party cant get us "VOTERS" to vote for them,maybe because you have just summed your party up by your post elitist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
I never get this argument,why do the left think the tories would like the nhs to go? i know loads of tories and cant say i know anyone who would like to be without the nhs.I think its a myth put about by the labour party and everyone just buys into it."
Ideology.
In a single word.
Universal health care, free at the point of delivery, funded by general healthcare, is a socialist idea.
I agree the Conservative Party believes in the idea of healthcare, but the socialist model is anathema.
The state running anything goes against their grain.
So their ideology says the NHS should be a competitive marketplace, where private companies compete to deliver services branded with the NHS logo.
Essentially, moving from a nationalised industry to one that is contracted out.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"
I never get this argument,why do the left think the tories would like the nhs to go? i know loads of tories and cant say i know anyone who would like to be without the nhs.I think its a myth put about by the labour party and everyone just buys into it.
Ideology.
In a single word.
Universal health care, free at the point of delivery, funded by general healthcare, is a socialist idea.
I agree the Conservative Party believes in the idea of healthcare, but the socialist model is anathema.
The state running anything goes against their grain.
So their ideology says the NHS should be a competitive marketplace, where private companies compete to deliver services branded with the NHS logo.
Essentially, moving from a nationalised industry to one that is contracted out.
"
I understand that but i dont buy into the myth that the tories want to destroy the nhs.Just because its a socialist model doesn't mean the tories want to destroy it.I think watching PMQ,s on tv gives a skewed version on politics alot of labour and tory mps have simular views on all sorts of subjects but its the job of the opposition to oppose and are probably happy with a lot of the acts going through thats why they dont change them as soon as they get in power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A good public school system is an investment for the future and a solid foundation for educational equality. Finland has one of the best school systems in the world and no private schools. The success of the Finish school system speaks for itself. Kids go to the nearest school available, cuts down on traffic and optimises school and spare time for each individual child. What's not to like? "
Yes that's the system there and the Finns know that because the elite must use the local school they make sure it's a good one,thereby avoiding the social and economic segregation and low social mobility that plagues the UK and US |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh ok well in that case i dont know any got a few more hairs to split here if you want them.So enlighten me why do these handful of people want to destroy the nhs?.Pity your massive party cant get us "VOTERS" to vote for them,maybe because you have just summed your party up by your post elitist. "
I'm not splitting hairs, fact is very few people are members of any of the political parties and most parties like it that way (even if they claim it to be otherwise). The reason this Tory handful want to destroy the NHS is because they are the party of those who have wealth and as such they consider they have to pay too much for the NHS, especially when health is another income stream they can use to further enrich themselves. If you don't believe me look at US healthcare to see what the Tories have planned for us. As for why cant get voters to vote for us in enough numbers, I guess it is for the same reason that during the General Strike of 26 the Tories were able to get many of the working class and most of the middle class to work for nothing in order to break the strike. It seems that in this country and the USA those that own the country and us have convinced enough of us that are making us poor for our own good. LoL
And before you say a word just consider what the major policy of the last 9 years has been and then tell me that the ideological austerity was anything other than a tool to enrich the wealthiest at the expense of the great majority of the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, brexit gets repetitive - until the following week when another shot storm hits.
So a propose a new controversial question:
"Education: I'd it ethical, moral and practical that we still have private schools?"
I'm torn on this issue, one one hand I respect the freedom of an individual to buy their own, or improve their education.
On the other hand, according to the regulatory body, these institutions provide on average 3x the resource per student than a state school can - this is based upon the figures that the schools give, so regulators even admit, it's likely to be higher.
Data shows that parents from any income level who get their kid into a private school are around 85% less likely to back taxation increases to see state school budgets expand.
Given that the bulk of private schools are placed in the south east, and those which are not are in established middle class constituencies outside of the area, this helps create political safe seats in normal political situations.
Not to mention private schools are state subsidised yet get charitable status - yet they are clearly not charities, undermining the private business ethos.
So, everyone can now fight over this, is the status quo; acceptable, in need of reform, or should private education be restricted solely to hiring a private tutor outside of school?
Fight! I mean debate!
There is no state subsidy. There is a tax reduction due to their charitable status.
They do not make a profit so I do not see why that status should be removed. They also have to make their sports facilities available to state schools (which had them sold off years ago). Also, as the tax which would be used for education of these children is unused I'd say that it works out reasonably.
Equality of opportunity is a different topic. I would agree with several posts that shutting public schools will not impro e anything. All that will happen is that, as now, state schools in more affluent areas will raise more fund raising money from rich parents and end up with better facilities and more staff.
As ever, more needs to spent on staff and facilities such that the margin of difference that money can buy becomes negligible and just buys "exclusivity" which has no real value."
They may not make a profit (since theyre NFP charities) but they do make whacking great surpluses which are reinvested into making the gap between private and state schools even larger |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
Sorry we will never be able to agree you have this mindset that a few wealthy people want to fuck everyone else so they can make more money.I dont think that way so dont think we will ever agree on anything to do with politics.Just one thing who would create jobs if rich people didnt want to make more money?What would everyone one do if all the rich decided they had enough money and just hoarded it instead of investing in business and creating jobs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just one thing who would create jobs if rich people didnt want to make more money?What would everyone one do if all the rich decided they had enough money and just hoarded it instead of investing in business and creating jobs?"
Couple of points here:
The rich (or businesses) do not create jobs other than a relatively few service jobs. Jobs are created by the vast majority of the population who are not rich and spend most if not all of their income on living and improving their lives.
As for what the rich do with their wealth: What do you think the rich are doing now? Ever heard of 'off shore tax havens'? Do you genuinely believe that all that money that is being spirited out of our country (and therefore our economy) is somehow creating jobs? It's not, it's being hoarded! And somehow you like many have swallowed the guff printed in the propaganda sheet of billionaires who sit in their tropical paradises or on their super-yachts pissing themselves laughing at us prols who collectively let them rob us blind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Just one thing who would create jobs if rich people didnt want to make more money?What would everyone one do if all the rich decided they had enough money and just hoarded it instead of investing in business and creating jobs?
Couple of points here:
The rich (or businesses) do not create jobs other than a relatively few service jobs. Jobs are created by the vast majority of the population who are not rich and spend most if not all of their income on living and improving their lives.
As for what the rich do with their wealth: What do you think the rich are doing now? Ever heard of 'off shore tax havens'? Do you genuinely believe that all that money that is being spirited out of our country (and therefore our economy) is somehow creating jobs? It's not, it's being hoarded! And somehow you like many have swallowed the guff printed in the propaganda sheet of billionaires who sit in their tropical paradises or on their super-yachts pissing themselves laughing at us prols who collectively let them rob us blind. "
As i said we see things through completely different eyes i dont think every rich tory is sitting in a tropical paradise laughing at me no more than i look at a communist and think lazy bastard no ambition cant make it on his own.Unlike you i dont see rich or poor only people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
There is a consensus among economists that austerity str@ngles recovery after a recession.
Why is that?
It removes spending power from those most likely to spend money - those on low incomes.
The evidence shows that people on low incomes spend more of their money than those further up the scale, who tend to hoard it. And the number on low incomes is much greater than those on high incomes.
That's why the recovery of the UK after the financial crash was so weak.
Austerity is an ideological con.
It is about shrinking the state and a redistribution of wealth. It is not about balancing the books.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"There is a consensus among economists that austerity str@ngles recovery after a recession.
Why is that?
It removes spending power from those most likely to spend money - those on low incomes.
The evidence shows that people on low incomes spend more of their money than those further up the scale, who tend to hoard it. And the number on low incomes is much greater than those on high incomes.
That's why the recovery of the UK after the financial crash was so weak.
Austerity is an ideological con.
It is about shrinking the state and a redistribution of wealth. It is not about balancing the books.
"
Probably a % of their money yes cant argue with that but we all know percentages dont reflect the true numbers.If a person earns £100 and spends it all its 100% but if a person earns £10,000 and spends £2000 its only 20% but they are still spending £1900 more.This is why i dont like percentages you can distort figures with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Probably a % of their money yes cant argue with that but we all know percentages dont reflect the true numbers.If a person earns £100 and spends it all its 100% but if a person earns £10,000 and spends £2000 its only 20% but they are still spending £1900 more.This is why i dont like percentages you can distort figures with them."
2 of us have now explained to you the economic reality but still you cling to your Tory indoctrinated from birth subservient belief that it is the rich that are the wealth creators not the great mass of humanity. Everything you say above is true on a micro level, but economies work on a macro level and for your analogy to be realistic the 1 spending 20% of their income represents about 0.1% of the population (because only those wealthy enough to avoid paying any taxes can save 80% of their income) so rather than 1 spending 100% of their income that number should be more like 90 (50% of the population live had to mouth and have virtually no savings), so even on your numbers thats £5,000, and then there is the spending of the other (more affluent) 49.99% of the population to take into account which inflates that figure of £5,000 enormously.
Why not listen to this, maybe George Carlin can get through to you:
https://youtu.be/cKUaqFzZLxU
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
