VOTE Labour and

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

AIBU to feel this will happen un a Labour government???

From what I see and IMO, the Labour lot on the whole believe in aspirations but only for themselves

Older people will vividly recall the the hideous tax rates under labour - between 1974 and 1979 the paye tax rate was up to 80%. Then there was a tax on top of that for so-called higher earners of 18%. This equated to 98%

I don't trust Labour, nor do I trust the Torties. Liberals, IMO they will sell your soul down the river to get a sniff at number 10

As I said I don't trust any of them. But if you are working, worked hard, been prudent with your money and have savings, decent private pensions in the pipeline and possibly a property or two that you have worked for, for your retirement and not wasting your money and want to leave some behind for your kids, GC etc rather than throw it away on the hand to mouth life - then if Labour comes into power, you are totally and truly F'd

Labour rants they will do this and the other - the last time they almost bankrupted England,

If you are working hard being prudent with your money and made sacrifices to send your kids to a private school as many Labour MP's do on pay at almost 100k - they are eager to put VAT on this part of education. The MPS whose pay is a couple of times above average pay will be able to afford it - will you??

Me, my family, relatives have all worked hard, not on benefits, never lived in social housing and not thrown our money away but been prudent to be self-sufficient and pay our taxes to support our country. If you are like us, then trust me, under Labour, you will be shafted hard.

I'm not sure if I will vote tory or an independent but this circus of Tories and Labour taking turns to lie to the nation is not on and yes, most politicians lie and will lie and say anything to get into number 10 and if your feel that is not true, then you must be on another planet

State education is not often substandard. Stop justifying privilege by making false accusations.

You can’t but it means that the amount of VAT that would be generated is already lower than originally anticipated. And, yes, people are being impacted by interest rates and COL which is why the VAT would be the last straw for some people….making it more likely that pupils will be removed and this policy raising very little revenue. So we will have a policy that harms some children and generates very little to benefit the country as a whole.

The way the same privately educating posters constantly bleat on about VAT on fees just illustrates why we need a government that actually gives a shit about the majority. Tories actually think this trumps a crumbling NHS and countless other areas of chaos we as a nation are having to contend with thanks to their 14 years in power.

Unbelievable!

Well it won’t harm children. They’ll just have to move schools which countless children manage on a daily basis.

I think you’ll find that the money saved by the state not educating my children, more than outweighs the VAT kickback. But as I have commented on other threads, we are moving our youngest child to a grammar and now the tax payer pays. Will save us tens of thousands.

You could buy four houses for £20k in 1971.

She is. God forbid MC people have to give anything up for the poors.

Prove to me that my accusations are false. You can’t. For goodness sake, there are multiple posts every day on this site about how people’s children are being let down by their schools. Providing an education for your child that supports their educational needs is not a privilege. Every child deserves that. Implementing a policy that harms some children rather than benefitting all is not the answer.

This.

Different record on the player but it's the same dreary song.

The point was that people on this thread didn’t believe that the highest rate was that high in the 70’s. Rates were much higher across the board. The lowest rate was between 30-35% during that decade.

They would have done if they’d been in power.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/howard-under-fire-over-iraq-7247839.html

The point was that people on this thread didn’t believe that the highest rate was that high in the 70’s.

I think it was more a case that people didn’t think it impacted many people back then, did it? It was an incredibly high salary then & obviously tax bands haven’t kept pace with inflation.

It will harm some children. If you like I can take you to a private school that has many pupils that used to be educated in the state system and were moved because they were unhappy due to their educational needs not being supported. Of course it would harm them to move back to schools that failed them in the first place. Not all children are the same, some can cope with change others cannot.

You can’t but it means that the amount of VAT that would be generated is already lower than originally anticipated. And, yes, people are being impacted by interest rates and COL which is why the VAT would be the last straw for some people….making it more likely that pupils will be removed and this policy raising very little revenue. So we will have a policy that harms some children and generates very little to benefit the country as a whole.

As I thought…

we have a lot of policies that harm dc with little benefit for the whole country already tbf, don’t think most will notice another.

No, if you look back through the thread there were people denying that such a high rate existed.

But surely a Labour government wouldn’t harm children?!

As I thought….they don’t care…

They were much better times. The convenient fact Tories love to ignore is the tax burden at the moment is the highest it's ever been. Mostly due to stealth taxes such as not raising the thresholds. Where's the money gone?

*Older people will vividly recall the the hideous tax rates under labour - between 1974 and 1979 the paye tax rate was up to 80%. Then there was a tax on top of that for so-called higher earners of 18%. This equated to 98%'

@Dibblydoodahdah this post on the opening page is ambiguous though as the majority were not paying anything like 80%. And I’m not sure how earning 20k plus back then meant you were only a so called high earner.

His "chums" didn't, one person did. But you do you. I hope school fees treble.

But surely a Labour government wouldn’t harm children?!

As I thought….they don’t care…

I think it’s more a case of dc at private school are lower down the lists of need vs dc in poverty etc. But you can disagree of course.

I know. I paid it. The highest rate still only applied to a tiny number of obscenely high incomes.

I’ll care about the most privileged percent of children in private education when a. The care experienced kids I work with are offered the same advantages and b. Those kid’s existing in poverty with poor housing and living in areas of social deprivation are cared for and c. Families aren’t reliant on food banks - it’s about priorities - those in highest need come first - sorry but those who might have to cut back a bit to pay for the privilege of private education come below those who don’t eat to keep the lights on

The original poster said it was up to 80% which was true - well no actually it was higher. Someone else said bullshit but it wasn’t bullshit as it was up to that level. I don’t know why people want to deny it. The rates were much higher back then for everyone.

*Clearly a lot of (usually Tory) voters see tax as some sort of bogey man and think people will get taxed to poverty (ignoring the fact it’s not tax, but low wages and high living costs which are the problem).

We actually need a way of being able to negotiate paid appropriate wages which recognise the value of our work.*

This.

Wages for most have been suppressed and a higher proportion of what value our economy creates has flown to a small group of the most wealthy. Its not really about this or that percentage of tax, wealth distribution is fucked

You’re missing the point. The VAT policy will do nothing to help the children you refer to and harm others in the process. And it won’t be the most privileged that will be impacted. It won’t impact the genuniely “rich” or “elite”.