Thread 15 Starmer - Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5244293-thread-14-starmer-the-starmeristas-strike-back?page=40&reply=141334312

I still think the problem is that pay differentials have got too big. It means there are far too many people on very low pay, so low that they need benefit top ups, and not enough people in the middle with an income that is worth taxing. Meanwhile the people at the top end have all kind of vehicles for not paying tax. It just isn't working.

And that is without even considering the moral arguments - I mean, why should the CEO earn 100 times as much as the cleaner? That gap could be narrowed without the CEO feeling the pinch.

“Can you explain what you meant about employers going for foreign workers then? I must be confused.”

It was just to illustrate that private businesses will simply hire the most qualified for the job. If state education is underfunded and the job skills of the young are not up to scratch, they will simply hire workers educated in other systems (whether state or private, private business does not care).
The gap between private and state schooling funding - some will be down to extra frills in the private sector and some will be down to underfunding of the state sector. We know this applies to SEND and buildings maintenance/investment, as a fact.
If eg the Germans/Chinese/Dutch whatever educate their young better than we do, then private businesses will be incentivised to hire them instead. Whether they will still want to come here with limited public services and a high tax burden is another matter - but we are still a better prospect for young talented people from eg China and India without family wealth to back them. However, for our own young and highly educated, it may well be that going to Australia, Dubai, Singapore appears to be a better prospect. If you are not anti-immigration there is probably no issue here and it will all come out in the wash.

I’m not getting it. Of course state school pupils have the ability and skills to be employed. The advantage of private comes in more subtle ways - pushing children up a grade or two due to small classes, giving them confidence in interview, giving them contacts for work experience/internships and so on.

@pointythings - it is not that simple to generalise because we have such huge differentials in housing costs. For example, someone earning 125k in London who has no help getting on the housing ladder is not going to feel rich. They will be paying a huge tax rate and not getting anything back. So for them going to Dubai or Abu Dhabi for a few years will make absolute sense as they can then save for that deposit. Many then do not come back and go elsewhere.
Private businesses in London then keep having to pay more and more and then eventually someone says, let’s relocate half our business to Dubai/Ireland wherever it is more tax efficient to do so. In the past, the issue was that the employees did not want to go to these places but that seems to have suddenly changed quite quickly. So if people want growth, they do need to start listening to what businesses tell them. Taxing at a 60% marginal rate is a massive deterrent.

I am not getting it either

No it isn't. Income tax is busted because of it. There are some very uncomfortable truths behind income tax. Higher earners are really the only contributors to that system.

Other European countries spread their tax burden more equally; we don't. Instead we've developed a system where there is a tax free amount, and then subsides on wages for the low paid via top ups in benefits or part time working.

I am not against higher tax rates or paying more, but we do need to look at this because income tax now is not sustainable as a method of funding public services.

So you both believe state school funding is perfectly adequate and bringing out the best in most children? So why then would the gap to the private education sector be a problem?

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low

Imagine what the governement coud have done with this money

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/18/revealed-conservatives-spent-134m-on-never-used-it-systems-for-failed-rwanda-scheme

Revealed: Conservatives spent £134m on never-used IT systems for failed Rwanda scheme

Home Office official says data protection laws caused the cost of its forced removal programme to increase

Where do you get that from? No one is saying that state school funding is adequate! The opposite is being said

We had 14 years of underfunding

If we want efficiency and economic growth we need to overhaul the tax system entirely and remove all the atypical disincentives so that every single person is incentivised to work the extra hours. Politicians tend to be too scared to lose votes.
Take the triple lock - it isn’t required in that form anymore. Better would be if it were linked to wage growth only and universal. A better and fairer incentive for the young as well.
If we want economic growth, things will have to change quite a bit. That means everyone has to pay a chunk of tax and everyone has to be incentivised to work full time.

I would like to let you know that there are an awful lot of people in London who are not earning anything like £125k and who have the same high housing costs. Those high housing costs are there for everyone in places like London, so why should very high earners get any kind of special treatment, and why should differentials not be reduced?

Addressing the housing supply issue in the UK needs to be an absolute top priority, of course.

No, state funding isn’t adequate. No, the best isn’t brought out in all children (but neither is it in private). Gap to the private sector? Funding gap? Means less bois students can do better than they otherwise would have. Doesn’t mean nobody in state is educated. And, for the 3rd time, a lot of the privilege comes from contacts. I worked in a very minor independent. Students still got very useful contacts with local businesses and politicians.

Yes I agree.

However its patchwork nature of U.K. politics and Chancellors liking to produce little gifts and allowances come the budget that tends to mean the system stays as it is.

I would tie pensions (and other benefits) to wage growth.

@cardibach - a school itself does not have contacts. It can only be the contacts of their parent group and alumni willing to help the students. Where I am in London in our good state schools, most of the parents have their own professional contacts and expertise. They really don’t need a private school. So it must differ from area to area.

And many of the larger businesses in London run specific schemes for children on FSM for internships and the like. Can’t say anyone is interested in local politicians.

Are you saying there is no need for private schools @Araminta1003 ? Or am I misunderstanding your posts

If the top 1% leave for Dubai, it doesn't mean the govt loses all that money.
The next 1% down just get promoted into their positions and everyone shuffles up a bracket, or the businesses they work for redistribute the pay among the remaining workforce, or hire a load more staff for the cost of the one lost from the top.

I think the argument for not taxing higher earners is weak. Why shouldn't they pay more? Even just 1p more must generate significant income for the Treasury. I have no idea of the figures, obviously, but would that small increase really force them to leave the UK?

@DuncinToffee - what I am saying is it is very difficult to differentiate between schools simply based on how they are funded (by the state or by the parents). Schools differ massively across regions, parent groups are vastly different, needs differ. There is no one size fits all or generalisation. There are truly excellent state schools which are incredibly efficient and far better run than most private schools. There are, I am sure, some truly excellent private schools too. There are private schools which meet the needs of SEND children who were previously miserable in the state system (they may have been better off in another state school, but choice in the state system is too restricted). And I do think at least the private sector offers some parents more of a choice. I also believe they should be supported in taking more poorer children, perhaps the way it was many years ago. I also think many private schools should have been more cost conscious in the last 20 years.

It really is not possible to make sweeping statements about schools which are microcosms of a community, including a parent community.

Like I said, I do not believe in overtaxing the rich because we need their money. It is a fine line and I think we have crossed it for some earners. I am not talking about multimillionaires here, I am talking about the young professionals who should be having families if they want them and should be able to buy a house in the places where the jobs are. That has become quite difficult in the South East.

It probably does. But when you are in a class of under 10 with someone, or boarding with them, you are more likely able to make the relationship which enables you to capitalise on the contact.
Are you trying to say there’s no advantage in private schools? If so, VAT isn’t an issue as nobidy will choose to pay for them anyway. And yet they do…why do you think that is?

Wouldn't it make sense to encourage job creation in regions beyond the south east, rather than continue inflating the London-centric housing bubble?
What if those thirty-somethings could move north and get a great house and a great job?
Or Northerners stay near their roots but with employment prospects?

“Wouldn't it make sense to encourage job creation in regions beyond the south east, rather than continue inflating the London-centric housing bubble?”

Yes agreed but this was promised 20 plus years ago and has only partially materialised. It should be an absolute focus really. There should be loads of talent, especially around the successful university cities.

@InMySpareTime Exactly. More investment in the north and giving big companies incentives to move up here (and not just the big cities like Manchester) or at least improve the rail/road infrastructure and public transport to enable young people to actually get around. Too much has been concentrated in the south east overheating it whilst parts of the north are on their arse.
Only time southerners do want to move here is when they are able to WFH and are at the point of needing more space, cheaper housing, and let’s be honest most of them head towards the already desirable areas.

Every wealth report I read states very clearly that we are losing millionaires at an alarming rate. Only China is losing more than us. They take with them capital and businesses and we are observing an exodus of young talented people as well. I mean if we are gaining the Chinese millionaires and young, I am OK with it. However, I am not sure that is the case for the millionaires nor do many people in this country seem fine with that.