Keir Starmer loves strivers part 2.

[jgw1]

The old thread is filling up rather fast, so in case anyone wants to continue chasing themselves round in circles here is a new one.

I should add I have no horse in this race as my DCs are all grown up now. I'm just discussing this from the experience we had
The solution as was said earlier would be to reduce poverty and inequality but that is never going to happen

I grew up in East Kent. Our youngest was born in a very poor coastal town that included the 35th most deprived area in the country. I understand coastal deprivation very well. We used a state primary over an independent because it was better - it was less challenged than some because it was a Catholic school, so inherently socially mixed, but still had high numbers of first languages and children with special needs. The real difference was that was in the late 90s, so benefitted palpably from Blair government’s Education, Education, Education.

Funding education properly would serve us all very well. Even if we are past the age our children need schooling.

I agree proper funding is essential and am happy to pay my fair share towards that, as I always have been.
Our children may just been just a bit older than yours so were probably just before the Blair funding years but we genuinely felt we had no other option than private at that time.

I have just read that in 2020/21, only 57.5% of students in Blackpool achieved grades 9 to 4 in English and Maths GCSE (teacher assessed), compared to 72.2% nationally so it seems that things are not improving. Unfortunately Blackpool now has 8 of the 10 most deprived areas in the country. We probably have less racial diversity here but more social issues, looked after children and transient population
My argument is not supporting private education but is expressing a concern that the unintended consequence of this proposal could be to further disadvantage young people from areas where there is poor state funded options

This came up at Xmas with friends who are planning on sending 3 kids to private secondaries.
they’re outraged that ordinary MC people like them who just want to do right by their kids are going to struggle to pay fees
if they go up.
One parent is in £80k, the other owns a finance firm and takes home around £150k though also gets bonuses… took a lot not to eye-roll, though someone else pointed out their income puts them in the top %’in the country, and actually most households wouldn’t consider that an ‘ordinary’ income…

Perhaps if they paid the same proportion of their income in taxes as a school cleaner, state schools would be funded better and they wouldn't need a private school?

@jgw1 not sure what your point is? I completely agree that these businesses shouldn’t be treated as charities.
they aren’t. They’re perks for the rich despite the OP s claim on the original thread that ‘strivers’ use schools not the Rich

By they I meant your friends with kids in private schools. Given their income they will pay a smaller proportion of it in taxes than someone on a much lower income.

Someone earning £15,000 a year takes home over £14,200. In other words, they keep almost 95% of their gross pay. Someone earning £150,000 takes home £91,000, ie they keep 60% of their gross pay. Higher earners do pay a greater proportion of their income on tax.

Admittedly not all high income earners pay tax through PAYE, and some take advantage of the tax legislation, like a poster on a previous thread bragging about claiming no end of allowances which arguably should not be technically allowed. It’s that kind of thing which should be clamped down on, and big multi nationals not paying their fair share of tax. Taxing school fees wouldn’t bring in that much tax income. Politicians would be far better tackling fraud etc. However that would require too much effort for a lot of them; they’d much rather spout on about private education and announce populist policies to win votes.

For example, benefit fraud is estimated at almost £9bn per year, money that should be going to those that actually need it. The NHS wastes billions. £100m is spent on prescribing basic painkillers which can be bought for pence at a supermarket. How many state school teachers would that fund?

Are taxes on income the only taxes people pay?

How much is lost to the exchequer through tax avoidance and worse for example the Prime Minister's wife being non-dom, a status that simply exists to help the rich avoid tax.

It would be useful to know Labour's proposed tax policies before we vote for them eg will they tax London mortgaged houses £20k a year in addition to the £5k a year council tax people already pay? I would not be surprised but it would be useful to know either way. And yes I have looked on the Labour party website but no answer. They will probably say they won't know the state of the coffers until they take office but that is the big issue for many - how much less money will they haev under Labour and they want to know that before they vote.

Obviously income taxes are not the only taxes people pay. Again though, people harp on about perfectly legal tax arrangements being “unfair”. The non dom rules exist for more reasons than simply the “rich” avoiding UK tax.

There is far more tax lost through illegal tax evasion than legal tax avoidance. Tax evasion (ie entirely illegal) losses are estimated at almost £6bn. Why do the Labour Party not announce policies to clamp down on that? Presumably because it takes more effort to clamp down on and because it won’t be as easy a vote winner.

I doubt we will find out any meaningful detail of their plans. The hard left of the Labour Party still exists and still have the same agenda. However, they know that those policies won’t be vote winners so will keep those quiet until after they’re elected.

Irrespective, i’ve made provision that any labour wealth redistribution policies will have no impact me, in fact, i suspect i will be better off….

Interested to know what provision?

They'll struggle to pay fees at the moment let alone if they go up, - private secondary around 24k here, so thats 72k after tax.

Did the Tory party go into the last election on a manifesto to raise taxes to their highest peacetime levels? If not, since that is what they have done, shouldn't they have called a general election before doing so?

So your long post about income taxes is utterly irrelevant.

Lower earners pay a higher proportion of their income as tax than those on higher incomes.

Err they have.

Do you not following the news at all?

‘They'll struggle to pay fees at the moment let alone if they go up, - private secondary around 24k here, so thats 72k after tax.’

they have very able, bright children with no SEN, parental support, and enough money to pay for tutors ( which they do) and lots of extra curriculars. We also live in an area where all the secondaries are Ofsted Good.
there really isn’t any reason why they can’t send their kids to state schools.
so my sympathy is limited.

Even if the local state school educationally was better than the neighbouring private school, there is one thing, that private, particularly public schools get you that only money can buy.

Priveledge.

"...people harp on about perfectly legal tax arrangements being “unfair”..."

But "legal tax arrangements" are not automatically fair by definition.
Whether tax arrangements are fair or unfair is separate to whether they are legal.
In theory, it is possible to have perfectly legal tax arrangements that are also unfair.

Indeed one might argue that some of these legal tax arrangements that seem only to be open to people with a certain amount of wealth are designed precisley to be unfair as a means of avoiding tax not available to those on a lower income.

@jgw1 yrs, I am aware of what private education can buy. I just don’t think they should be treated as charities.

Some couples choose that both work part time so they both have a full single person allowance each rather than one works and the otehr does not work at all - that is tax avoidance and is legal. The same goes for those rich enough to pay into a pension - they are avoiding tax. Same with ISAs. I have none of that. Same with the David Milliband's father's will variation after death to reduce inheritance tax - legal, normal and wise.

As a big state is a moral wrong anythnig done lawfully to reduce the tax take is moral goodness in my eyes.

There are some general statutes now requiring those preparing specific tax schemes to notify them to th HMRC. There is also a General Anti-Abuse Rule - GAAR which makes some avoidance into evasion ( see www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-uks-general-anti-abuse-rule) but the bottom line is tax avoidance is legal and tax evasion is a crime.

Nobody is disagreeing that tax avoidance is legal and tax evasion is illegal: and that people will arrange their affairs to minimise tax, if possible.