To think that people who agree with VAT on private school fees but not on university fees, are hypocrites?

[Blanket601]

If Labour add VAT to private school fees, they should also add VAT to university fees. Or no VAT on either. The principle and rule, should be the same.

Why is only private school education being platformed. I think we all know why.

Ah the old 'they're jealous' argument @MisterChips

I'm firmly driven by ideology. Access to a good education is a fundamental human right and the key to social mobility for all not just those who pay for it.

I would rather a lot more of my (and your) taxes went on fulfilling that ideology. The facility for the already privileged to pursue privilege for their own children goes directly against this aspiration.

People don’t earn as much as others for all sorts of reasons. Mostly the job they can actually do. Many cannot do higher paying roles but some don’t want to. You cannot bleed the tax payers dry. More people need to work and productivity is low in public services. We need more people working productively and thereby earning more. Wages have stagnated but we seem to still tell young people to do what they want and not worry about jobs and long term planning. They need better advice and some need a bit more oooomph!

Are you on the wrong thread?

And if they aren't good enough? What should happen to them?

I'm very fortunate. I have a brain that happens to make me quite good at certain things which seem to be in demand when it comes to employment. I did not earn the right to have that brain. It was just luck. It was also just luck that I was born into a stable, loving family with educated parents and sufficient income to meet all of our needs.

Yes, I have had to work hard to get where I am, but no amount of hard work would have got me here if I hadn't had that raw potential and a supportive family background. In other words, a heavy dose of luck.

Some people are not so lucky. For whatever reason, they don't necessarily have the ability to excel in the areas which are typically linked to high earnings, no matter how hard they work. And they may be born into very difficult circumstances that make it much harder for them to build on the talents that they have.

It is exactly as you say. Earnings are not about working hard. So you're damn right that I want your tax income and mine to help pay for a decent standard of living/better opportunities for those who are less fortunate than you or I have been.

And I make no apologies for that either.

Noone is irreplaceable. If you quit someone else will probably be employed to do your job (unless they decide you weren't doing much for the money and don't need replacing).

Exactly. There are vanishingly few people with skills that are so rare that they couldn't be replaced. And those who are the least easy to replace are often far from being the best paid.

Plenty of low paid staff are not easily replaced.

And the new employee is likely to be paid more too if they’d struggle to get calibre of application. So even more tax revenue.

No, you make the sweeping assumption that everyone can afford private education if they would only work harder. I didn't say that, I didn't say anything that could possibly be mistaken for that, please don't make stuff up. "Family A works hard" isn't the same as saying "Only Family A works hard".

Also you reference a £100-150k household income or dropping down to just £50-80k and having a lot of leisure is just the norm for families. Didn't say that either, I said something completely different. Why do you make stuff up?

Why can't you see that whinging about having to work hard and pay a lot of taxes and VAT on school fees while many in the country are actually on the bread line doesn't foster sympathy. I'm not whinging! I'm just saying the outcomes of this policy will be defined by the choices of people on the margins of affording private education, and it is entirely (as you rightly say) a matter of elementary economics. If it's not about the economics, if levelling-down and harming families and children is indeed the point, then let's stop pretending it's about the economics.

I am happy to pay probably a lot more than you in taxes. Pretty massive and baseless assumption. But good for you.

I'd love more people to get a good education. This policy won't deliver it. It won't, as promised, raise much money (possibly none, or negative) and will cause significant harm. And it deflects from all the many things a government could do to improve education.

What it will do, is level down by contracting and closing more affordable private schools. And it will leave untouched the real elite expensive ones, while ironically, for the small minority of families that do want to buy exclusivity and snobbery, making it even better. So you'll get more equal education, levelled down, for the unglamorous end...while making the exclusivity (or "privilege" if you insist) even worse at the top end.

And that's where your ideology will take us. Amazing.

Fortunately for me my employer quite values my knowledge of economics, and with responses like that it's abundantly clear you couldn't do my job.

If (and it's a big if) I get replaced by somebody who's equally productive, then the economy still lost out to the extent of whatever work they were doing before. Typically, economists would assume employers have done a reasonable job of hiring the best person for a role and that any substitution will be less productive.

By your alternate logic, since virtually everyone's replaceable, we can all just knock off and somehow "the economy" will tax itself and pay us all a universal income....is that it?

OMG. I can't even....too much laughter.

That's true and is relevant to the discussion of higher earners and school fees because.....?

Obviously we can't all give up our jobs, but I doubt the economy will crash because you do. Perhaps your replacement will be better at your job than you are and not have private school fees to worry about. Win win.

I take it from that rather incapacitated comment that you have nothing to say! Successors in empty job roles are prime to receive a higher salary, particularly in higher paying roles. Last year my DH received a salary 20% higher than the previous job holder – and he had less experience.

here we go again.

I'm not saying the economy crashes if I quit. I'm saying the fiscal and economic impact is pretty serious if a small proportion of families do...or if they don't step on the road in the first place.

I'm saying if we go state it costs ~£8k in direct costs, and the lost taxation driven out of our school fees in the independent school costs a further £4k or so. Then if I cut back on work I'll be paying £tens of k less tax; if we move abroad the impact will be several multiples of that.

And that no sane economists would roll the dice on "I'll just bin off several thousand higher earners and hope their economic output can be replaced by their superior successors". My boss interviewed and rejected three rounds of recruitment over six months before I applied, so I don't think he'd be quick to take that chance.

I take it on trust that you guys saying you are high earners are, indeed, high earners and deservedly so. I think you should extend the same courtesy.

It’s relevant because these very high paid workers of on over £100k cannot easily walk into a £50k role as you claim they can – they are over-qualified and typically have far more applicants.

I could but barely worth it. You want to concoct some story that says "if you quit your job the economy is as well / better off without you". it's just bizarre. Your DH experience, if true, is most unusual.

It’s not unusual at all. They wanted him, they paid to get him. I’m in a completely different industry and a new recruit was paid just over 10% higher than previous job holder. They wanted her – they paid to get her.

Empty high earning roles will be filled by other tax payers.

Maybe. Or maybe they just ask for a 3/5 pattern, or extended holidays, either of which is highly probable. Or maybe they just retire (much) earlier. Or maybe they do that fun hustle they always wanted, making curtains or whatever.

for me personally, in my line, I'd have no trouble asking for 3/5. As I mentioned, they rejected three rounds of candidates. they like me.

You guys are really stretching the bounds of every pronouncement you make on the labour market, trying to disprove the blindingly obvious. People on higher incomes have choices - as left-wingers are usually quick to observe, we're not working for food and basic shelter.

Oh goodness. And even if they are, and they're just as good, those other taxpayers are still doing less work. It's still a loss to the economy of a highly-productive, high-earning, highly-taxed worker.

You will be paying less tax if you work less but someone else will probably be working more and paying more tax (unless your employer decides they don't need anyone to do extra hours). Most highly paid employees aren't going to reduce their hours because of this.

Again, again, again.

"It's still a loss to the taxable economy of a highly-productive, high-earning, highly-taxed worker." for the third time, I think.

Most highly paid employees aren't going to reduce their hours, agreed. It only takes 10% of private school families cutting half their hours associated with earning school fees to cost the Exchequer £500m (assuming 40pc taxpayers). If they quit entirely, or move abroad, it takes about 2% of families.

That's the payroll taxes alone and ignores the value of work to their employers, employees and customers.

Private schools and private school families are the golden goose.

It’s not if they are essential job swapping with a lower earner, which you claimed to be the case. So make up your mind?

You’re also going outside the realms of stone-cold economics (your model of, at least) and into the psychology of why high earners like to be high earning. It’s highly presumptuous it’s solely school fees.

It's highly presumptuous it's not. I'm not claiming to be speaking for everyone. It doesn't take very many.

You're clutching at straws imagining job swaps, imagining it's difficult for me (or higher earners in general) to earn less, assuming I'm easily replaceable, whatever.

Regarding the job swap - if I choose a job for £50k, it's not going to be a job swap. As I mentioned my boss struggled to fill my job offering much more than £50k. Nobody earning £50k now is going to get my job. It's still less work being done except in the remarkably improbable scenario somebody is easily-replaced.