Wasn't a fee-paying school back then.
Apart from that, you're wrong as usual. The only people squealing are died-in-the-wool Tories who wouldn't vote Labour anyway.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Machiavelli
- Start date
Apart from that, you're wrong as usual. The only people squealing are died-in-the-wool Tories who wouldn't vote Labour anyway.
But isn't that a bit like the NHS / Private issue? - If we didn't have private hospitals (stealing NHS staff trained at public expense) then there would be more load on the NHS hospitals - therefore private hospitals must be good.
So it needs something a lot more radical than minor financial tinkering?
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,194
There's surely little element of subsidy involved? By definition, if they're charities they're non-profit making and so the absence of Corporation tax makes no difference.Obviously it's up to individuals how and where they spend their money, but I'm still unclear why you think British taxpayers should have to subsidise them if they can't afford the actual cost of what they want, particularly in the current economic climate where people are struggling to stay warm and eat
It does indeed. If we had the stones to deal with the issue properly and ban public schools full stop, you'd find the education budget would miraculously double overnight. This isn't politics of envy, it's just what happened when Finland did exactly that.
Starmer is going to have a mega-majority.... why hasn't he got the confidence to do something like this and make a real difference?
erkan
Well-known member
I would abolish all private schools. 600,000 x £40,000 = £24,000,000,000. That would help with the solution.
Removing the tax break should just mean that these ludicrously overproviding perpetuators of privilege scale back their luxurious offer by 20%.
Removal of charity status would mean schools would have to charge VAT on their fees. Not sure what corporation tax has to do with this.
So again... Starmer is going to have a mega-majority.... why hasn't he got the confidence to do something like this and make a real difference?
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,864
The subsidies are £1.7Billion in VAT and business rates
Because he is at the mercy of big business and media interests who have sufficient influence to get enough turkeys voting for Christmas to swing elections. That's why we really need to change the voting system, so that parties with a minority don't get seat majorities. IMO, that is more urgent than any other issue, beyond homelessness and child poverty.
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,315
deleted
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,194
That depends on how you define a subsidy. I didn't pay VAT on my dinner today, but I wouldn't say it was subsidised. And I bet if VAT rose to 25%, there wouldn't be great approval for the government for increasing food subsidies by 5% across the board.The subsidies are £1.7Billion in VAT and business rates
When it was the "tampon tax", the argument was that the government shouldn't be taxing women's sanitary products. They weren't suggesting that the products were on sale at normal prices and the women wanted subsidies. They wanted the abolition of the tax.
Absence of business rates sounds like a subsidy, though. How much is that?
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,194
They can't ban public schools full stop, because the richer ones (boarding schools) would move abroad. They would be able to close the cheaper end of the market, and the day schools.
nicko31
Well-known member
Beggars belief my local comp pays businesses rates, yet the independent school down the road has multiple rugby pitches, a leisure centre, a running track and a friggin golf course. They pay nothing.The subsidies are £1.7Billion in VAT and business rates
I don't advocate banning them but if they choose to exist they need to pay their way.
Next the Non-doms, yes you media owners....
Last edited:
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 6,990
Maybe he will when he's in power. Maybe he'll do a lot of the things which got him into the labour party in the first place.
At the moment, his job is to not give the tories a sniff. It's the football equivalent of ignoring a 4 against 1 and running the ball into the corner in stoppage time when you've got a lead.
Dull? yes
Pragmatic? yes.
But it gives him the best chance at maximising that majority. The tory press with come at him ferociously and he's wise not to underestimate their power.
And relies on him not just being another Tory light in sheeps clothing. I dont trust him at all.
What other topics do you chat about in your working class circles? How attractive your nannies are? the color of your new Porsche?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
because you haven't thought on what the problem is. first, its a popular political football of the left, that most centre ground dont care about, triggering the right (even those never considered going private). second, Sunak went to private school so its a direct dig at him. with that lens its a fine solution.