Its the People not the Politicians

[sahel]

So are you suggesting scrapping private schools ? I'm not adverse to the idea of the business rate relief being stopped but I would want to see a detailed study of any effect it would have on state schools rather than the idea just being a Labour sound bite.

No I would not ban them. I would take away their tax reliefs and I would "encourage" the elite universities to change their admissions procedures to make sure their intake of students was commensurate with the relative populations of state vs public schools. "Encouragement" would I guess be financial and moral pressure. I would also look at charging the public schools with a fee for use of state educated teachers

 

[Hastings gull]

I agree with you (now there's a first). However Emily Thornbury grew up in a council house and does not fall in the category that you talk about. She made a mistake - a flippant comment that says nothing of note really - but I think she was a really good soul and it is a great pity she has been removed. Another example of mob rule

You mean that she made a comment that showed her true belief and is now embarrassed that she has been shown for what she is - a hypocritical champagne socialist. Given her position, this most decidedly is of note, and is very topical, given the upsurge in support, rightly or wrongly, for UKIP. Ed M would not have sacked her if he did not see the electoral damage that was done. As to whether she is a really good soul - do you know her and if not, how could you possibly be in a position to make such a comment?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No I would not ban them. I would take away their tax reliefs and I would "encourage" the elite universities to change their admissions procedures to make sure their intake of students was commensurate with the relative populations of state vs public schools. "Encouragement" would I guess be financial and moral pressure. I would also look at charging the public schools with a fee for use of state educated teachers

The problem of removing tax relief is that unintentionally you could remove access to a whole section of middle earners to private education - i.e. make private education even more elite. It could also cost the state schools more as parents that can no longer afford private education move their children into the state sector. It might be a vote winning traditional Labour type policy to remove tax relief but it needs proper costing.

It would seem harsh to restrict qualified teachers to who they can work for - we don't do it for any other profession and let's not forget, students now pay very high fees to go to university so, as a customer as students are nowadays, I'd not be happy with a government restricting my employment market.

 

[Hastings gull]

The answer is in the previous post. Ironically most private schools were established back in the 1800s to help the poor. They have been hijacked by the well off (and overseas students) but still the public subsidises them through training their staff and tax and business rate reliefs. Why?

Thanks - you did answer this and I had not seen the post. I was wondering whether you were referring to the education, but you were not. I cannot disagree with your stats, and public school pupils do undoubtedly have an advantage. My brother, who went to a state school, by the way, was at RMA Sandhurst and there encountered a club for those who went to a "Good School." . .His didn't count! Though I appreciate that you may not think much of this, those who pay for private education, do also pay for state schools, which they do not use - worth bearing in mind, when we say that the schools should pay the state for educating the teachers. Also, the Etons of this world are always used to "get at" the privilege of private schools, with some clear justification, but many do not charge huge fees and are used by parents who are not overly wealthy but want to give their children the best possible start, and do not feel that the neighbourhood comp will do this.

 

[Hastings gull]

Why do people not argue for Scandinavian type tax levels when they would benefit so much from them?
Because some of us believe it's better for people to have more money in their own pocket with the decision on how to spend the money THEY earned rather than have big expensive government swallow up peoples money.

This is the reality for most people, I suspect. As a general principle, I would much rather decide what I choose to spend my money on, though, of course, there has to be some sort of central government to organise the distribution of monies to schools. NHS, Defence etc. Unfortunately the bigger the organisation, the greater potential there is for waste, as it becomes ever more impersonal - I am sure that politicians and civil servants would not lose too much sleep over waste, afterall it is only taxpayers' monies.

 

[sahel]

Thanks - you did answer this and I had not seen the post. I was wondering whether you were referring to the education, but you were not. I cannot disagree with your stats, and public school pupils do undoubtedly have an advantage. My brother, who went to a state school, by the way, was at RMA Sandhurst and there encountered a club for those who went to a "Good School." . .His didn't count! Though I appreciate that you may not think much of this, those who pay for private education, do also pay for state schools, which they do not use - worth bearing in mind, when we say that the schools should pay the state for educating the teachers. Also, the Etons of this world are always used to "get at" the privilege of private schools, with some clear justification, but many do not charge huge fees and are used by parents who are not overly wealthy but want to give their children the best possible start, and do not feel that the neighbourhood comp will do this.

I can well understand parents wanting the best for their kids. However if you believe "equality of opportunity" is something to be strived for you surely have to have as level a playing field for all children as possible. And it surely does not make sense for ordinary people to be subsidising richer people to get a privileged education! That really is a double whammy!

 

[Buzzer]

I can well understand parents wanting the best for their kids. However if you believe "equality of opportunity" is something to be strived for you surely have to have as level a playing field for all children as possible. And it surely does not make sense for ordinary people to be subsidising richer people to get a privileged education! That really is a double whammy!

The offset of this is that they are removing their children from state education and freeing up more money for those of us educated in state schools. And the parents have already paid tax on the fees charged by private schools. It seems to me that the tax argument is fallacious as it appears to be broadly cost neutral. I appreciate there are arguments for and against private education but your claim that there's a double whammy to the taxpayer doesn't hold water.

 

[Hastings gull]

I can well understand parents wanting the best for their kids. However if you believe "equality of opportunity" is something to be strived for you surely have to have as level a playing field for all children as possible. And it surely does not make sense for ordinary people to be subsidising richer people to get a privileged education! That really is a double whammy!

I left it to the post below who knows more about the tax system than I do - clearly it is not so simple, as to who benefits from what. Of course you have to have a level playing field, and wealthier families who can afford to pay for good private education, do have an advantage. If we get rid of private schools, then that 7% will have to go somewhere and presumably that will be the local comp, or primary school. Those children will presumably come from a certain part of town, and will thus go the local school that "services" that particular area. This school is thus likely to have a greater proportion of children from richer or middle class families, who tend to take a greater interest in their education. Almost certainly this school will have much better exam results etc etc, which then will attract motivated parents from other areas of the town, thus causing an upward spiral. The idea of the level playing field is very much in theory. I am sure that you would counteract this by saying that it should not stop you from trying, fair enough, but the situation I have described is what will happen.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Thank you for agreeing - there hasn't been much of that. the thing I find sad (and here I go being arrogant again) is how much people do not seem to recognise where their interest lie

Why do people not insist on a higher minimum wage instead of obsessing about immigration or the EU?
Why do people accept companies and individuals avoiding tax? For example why do they go on buying from Amazon or using Starbucks? Why don't they go on and on about it until the politicains do something?
Why do people accept the growing inequality of income and wealth? How come they go on voting Tory rather than putting some backbone into Labour by saying in polls they want something done?
Why do people accept the iniquities around private education when it directly prejudices the life chances of their own children?
Why do people not argue for Scandinavian type tax levels when they would benefit so much from them?

I could go on........I just don't understand it though of course our old friend the press has a lot to do with it I think

Again, I agree totally.

The press is probably a lot to do with it.

But is it not just a philosophical difference between the attitude "It's my money and I want to spend it how I choose", and the acceptance that paying taxes is a necessary process for a decent society.

On the education point, I was gratified to note that the Shadow Education secretary is highlighting the issue of Independent schools and their charitable status. I thoroughly object to subsidising the education of the children of people who are far better off than me when they (the schools) mostly do nothing to justify it.

 

[Hastings gull]

Again, I agree totally.

The press is probably a lot to do with it.

But is it not just a philosophical difference between the attitude "It's my money and I want to spend it how I choose", and the acceptance that paying taxes is a necessary process for a decent society.

On the education point, I was gratified to note that the Shadow Education secretary is highlighting the issue of Independent schools and their charitable status. I thoroughly object to subsidising the education of the children of people who are far better off than me when they (the schools) mostly do nothing to justify it.[/QUOTE]

With respect, you are being as simplistic as the OP. It is not a choice, as your first para suggests - you can accept that taxes need to be paid as a necessary process (we all benefit from government expenditure) AND hold the view that you would want control of your money, as far as is possible. It is surely a question of degree. OK, you object to subsidising etc, which is your perfect right, though the tax issue is rather more complicated than it first might seem. But I would certainly take issue with the sweeping nature of your final statement -how can you possibly be in a position to make such a wild judgement?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

On the education point, I was gratified to note that the Shadow Education secretary is highlighting the issue of Independent schools and their charitable status. I thoroughly object to subsidising the education of the children of people who are far better off than me when they (the schools) mostly do nothing to justify it.

The real high end schools I'd agree that those parents are very likely to be much better off than many of us but plenty of middle earners send their children to private school, they just sacrifice something to pay for it. The discussion on tax relief for private schools should be considered against increased costs to the state sector if increasing private prices forces people across to the state sector. After all, those that pay for private education also pay for state education. The problem is that the political parties treat private education as a class thing rather than another tool to ensure well educated children.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem is that the political parties treat private education as a class thing rather than another tool to ensure well educated children.

except certain politicians who send their children private, they are thinking of the education of course.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Again, I agree totally.

The press is probably a lot to do with it.

But is it not just a philosophical difference between the attitude "It's my money and I want to spend it how I choose", and the acceptance that paying taxes is a necessary process for a decent society.

On the education point, I was gratified to note that the Shadow Education secretary is highlighting the issue of Independent schools and their charitable status. I thoroughly object to subsidising the education of the children of people who are far better off than me when they (the schools) mostly do nothing to justify it.[/QUOTE]

With respect, you are being as simplistic as the OP. It is not a choice, as your first para suggests - you can accept that taxes need to be paid as a necessary process (we all benefit from government expenditure) AND hold the view that you would want control of your money, as far as is possible. It is surely a question of degree. OK, you object to subsidising etc, which is your perfect right, though the tax issue is rather more complicated than it first might seem. But I would certainly take issue with the sweeping nature of your final statement -how can you possibly be in a position to make such a wild judgement?

Being simplistic probably yes. I wasn't trying to suggest that everyone would be either for very high levels of taxation, or very low levels. It's not all black and white.

And possibly I should have said seem mostly to do nothing to justify it, but I would be very happy to hear tales of the magnanimity of such institutions.

 

[jakarta]

Being simplistic probably yes. I wasn't trying to suggest that everyone would be either for very high levels of taxation, or very low levels. It's not all black and white.

And possibly I should have said seem mostly to do nothing to justify it, but I would be very happy to hear tales of the magnanimity of such institutions.

A Local Boy Done Good....... Christ's Hospital in Horsham:

Pupils’ fees are assessed according to family income, so that it is a child’s ability and potential to benefit from a Christ’s Hospital education that determines their selection. This results in a social and cultural diversity that enriches our school community and offers our pupils unique opportunities as we prepare them to take their place in the modern world.