Kier starmer! He hates strivers!

[Bucketheadbucketbum]

He wants to introduce a policy to put up the cost of school fees 10 to 15%. This is a tax on hard-working parents! We slave away cutting cots everywhere living hand to mouth to try and improve our childrens future . Live in an average house average area 1 shit car no holidays work like a dog to get our kids through. We are easing the burden on the state system by choosing independent schools. We're not sending them to Eton paid by our trust fund! Why does he want to punish strivers! Tax the energy companies! So disappointed. We need a new political party. What's the point in trying to better your future.

By "marginal", I don't mean "small", I mean "effectively nil" once the net effect on the budget has been considered.

If only 5% of private school pupils return to the state sector, the entirety of that £220m in tax revenue will be wiped out by the necessary increase in the state budget to accommodate them. That's before considering that the £220m itself will reduce as a consequence. That's what I mean about taxes existing to fund public services, increasing them in this fashion has the potential to result in less money being available for services.

Whereas I'm sure that when the government closed the K2 loophole, the cost to HMRC of doing so was far smaller than the revenue gained.

But sure, while you're about it why don't you stick a 99% top rate of tax on income? It will end up worsening the public finances but at least it's a win for social justice, right?

The NHS is not "allowing" thousands to die.

@JusteanBiscuits Absolutely - self serving nonsense being rolled out.

The NHS is not needlessly killing anyone. Those working hard in very difficult circumstances are continuing to provide an incredibly efficient service based on outcomes per £. They have suffered over a decade of Tory austerity aimed at undermining the system and allowing stealth privatisation. We need to look after what we have or health inequalities will become bigger gaping chasms.

Let's be honest, nobody could trash the economy quite like a Tory. Brexit was manipulation by the media to avoid tax increases for those using tax havens. There is a political ideology of keeping peasants in their places to service the rich. The whole idea of trickle down is just nonsense. If we increase public sector wages it might boost the economy but reducing highest rate tax just allows bigger reserves for the wealthy.

We would benefit from higher rate tax cuts, business expenses and low corporation tax. We have saved well over a hundred thousand in school bursaries and scholarships. We have private health insurance already. We'd probably be thought to be very obviously Tory supporters. The thing is we can see its unfair.
Of course we should pay a higher proportion of taxes than someone on a lower income.
Of course state education should be better funded from nursery through university. It should be a fantastic education for all - including special andvspecialist education. We'd happily pay for that because we all need an educated society.
Of course the NHS needs proper funding if its to survive in any form. I mean equivalent per capita spend to other G7 nations. We'd happily pay for that because we all need a healthy population.

What we dislike is paying for vanity projects such as Royal Yachts and airplanes. Non-existent but expensive Festivals of Brexit, and sleazy contracts that continue to fill the pockets of Tory cronies.

The problem with the NHS is staff shortages and none of the brexiteers who were moaning about foreigners taking their jobs want to work there.

It’s painful to think that this tax reduction reduction might force a child from his or her school to mix with the hobbledehoy in the state system.

whatever next.

moving from the gated rural estate to a semi?

it’s just not acceptable. They’ll have absolutely nothing to talk to the other parents about at the school drop off.

#saynototaxreductionreductions

I've not mentioned social justice once. It's a tax break.

Nor have I, (nor has anyone else that I can recall) talked about adding on a top rate on tax, at 99% or otherwise.

Plus mention of "tax raids"... this has taken a left turn into hyperbole.

I don't have time to delve into this further apart from to say that even if 5% return to the state sector, you're forgetting that I excluded the effect of VAT.
Apparently, there are 70,000 boarders. Assuming that only half of them are secondary boarders, paying £30k per year (although I suspect there are more secondary than primary boarders), the VAT on that would more than cover the basic secondary per-pupil budget for the 5% (although some would be primary pupils and the primary per-pupil budget is over £1k lower), with £30m to spare.
And that's before accounting for any of the VAT on the other half of the boarders or the day fees (although some would be part of the 5% drop out, of course and schools may lower their fees to absorb some of the VAT effect)

Schools may have to rethink their operating model or restructure or whatever but many of them have healthy investments and reserves to see them through any transitional financial discomfort. Some of them might have to sell off assets, there could also be capital gains tax, in the short-term.

The sector will eventually settle down again. Schools will make every effort to get back to their previous profitability - as nobody likes to go backwards when looking at their numbers. And independent schools are aspirational, so where there's a will, there's a way for many families.

This is not about about the tax revenue being raised it's about the perceived unfairness of the current system.

the nhs is not allowing 1000s to die

Royal College of Emergency Medicine begs to differ, they estimate 200 a week are dying as they cannot gain emergency care/delays for ambulance/delays to AE/delays to a ward.

...that's entire preventable.. though perhaps you are right? maybe its the govt?

VAT on schools fee's ? its trivia, just the very well off trying to avoid tax.

How will this policy improve things for disadvantaged children? If it neither does that, nor raises any tax revenue then what does the policy actually achieve?

Most people struggle with the concept of private schools deserving a tax break, especially when they are generally oversubscribed and benefit the few.

"How will this policy improve things for disadvantaged children?"

Well Michael Gove's suggestion was -

And the money we raise from ending the tax advantages enjoyed by private schools could be redeployed to help the most vulnerable children of all — those taken into care. We could increase the amount spent on their education through the pupil premium.
Maybe Labour will put those words in to action.

It is really a concerning day when Gove appears to be a one of the more rational and normal members of the Tory party.

The fault does not lie with NHS staff. Its far more complicated than that but our government has cut health and social care to the bone. They've reduced preventative care, made it undesirable to work in healthcare and imposed contracts that failed to deliver.

If only 5% of private school pupils return to the state sector, the entirety of that £220m in tax revenue will be wiped out by the necessary increase in the state budget to accommodate them.

Oh dear, are we back here?

First, the state school population has peaked and is declining. So no, it's not additional costs and could actually help some
schools keep their student populations at a level where they could afford to maintain their current offer of subjects, etc.

Second, given that school fees have increased by 23% above inflation in the past decade and we didn't see any reduction in pupil numbers, why are we expecting any rise related to the removal of charitable status to have such an impact?

@DdraigGoch

"How will this policy improve things for disadvantaged children? If it neither does that, nor raises any tax revenue then what does the policy actually achieve?"

£1.6 BN revenue.

In my borough, council funding has been cut by 50% over the last 5 years.

That means for example Child Protection is on its fucking knees.

That means the Baby P's of this world have 50% less protection than they did 5 years ago.

Less social workers with a massive case load.

If that isn't enough for you, I don't know that else to say.

I have never used social services, so I think that it is only fair that I get a rebate on my 2nd home in Portugal.

@jgw1 my kids are finished in education, can I get a rebate.

Oh and since I'm driving, I'm altruistically paying towards public transport.

Can I get charity status?

Some countries do tax rebates but not here. I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Oth I don’t think many add tax to education. but couldn’t find much on it.

Sure.

I don't use motorways, so can I have my money back for them please.

How does this proposal solve any of that? Any tax raised would be cancelled out by increased spending because those children displaced would need places in state schools.

Absolutely, I think you should!

I once put out a chip pan fire, so I'd like a refund in recognition of the fact that I subsidised the fire brigade by putting it out myself instead of calling them.
Come to think of it, I've never used the fire service at all, so I've basically paid for it twice.

I'm a home owner, so I've also saved the local authority years of council housing - I'm sure that's deserving of council tax relief - 80% should do it.

In fact, I think I'm entitled to demand a tax exemption for every public sector service that I haven't used.
I'm just levelling up, though, so it's all good, right?

Actually, I don't think I should pay any income tax at all because I look after a tiny percentage of children (I know they're my own but I've saved them from being a social services responsibility - looked after children are way more expensive than school pupils) and occasionally I'll look after a friends' children, so that's a public benefit right? I'm going to register as a charity, too.

And if anyone complains about my tax breaks, I'm going to remind them that really, I've been subsidising them and relieving the pressure on public services for years. And really they ought to be grateful, instead of coming at me with their politics of envy.

Because, if you have to use public services, you just aren't striving enough.

I read on here more people received benefits than paid tax in last couple of years.

Is there a limit to how comfortable the left feel with that. Maybe 75%

Someone else will always pay…

The majority of people in receipt of benefits also work.

Like clockwork. I didn’t mention working or not.

Then I'm not sure what your point is?