Allow a play date where mum unapologetically supports children’s education tax

[GigglyOrange]

Just this really, our local independent prep school closed due to the education tax earlier this year and has caused absolute chaos for lots of families, including my own. My dd (6) has been invited for a play date with a girl she seems very friendly with and who seems very sweet, but I’ve since found out from another parent that the mum is an ‘unapologetic education taxer’. My instinct is to cancel the play date, AIBU?

I had to pay VAT to the plumber when the cold water pipe burst under my sink. What about my human right to clean drinking water?!

I get your drift, but not as simple as that. As you hint at.

Because of numbers and scale.

Lower incomes spend a lot more of their income as a % of what they earn, and there is a lot more low earners than high earners.

A village of low earners will be paying in more combined than the street of high earners. And not all of them will be using all the services. And there is also economy of scale.

It reminds me of something from years ago. Might be an urban myth. Can't remember. That smokers were the biggest drain on the NHS, but also the biggest contributor because of the duty on ciggies.

Your post reminds me of arguments for trickle down economics. But trickle down has been debunked, and shown not to work. Because 100 people spending 10 quid a day on essentials creates more money flow in an economy than a couple of people spending 20 quid a day.

Something like that.

Very true. A person's contribution to society cannot only be measured in pounds and pence, but in the value of the work they do for their commuinity, both paid and voluntary, in how they treat other people.

This.

No one in real life could really be that petty, surely 🤣

Hahaha how DARE you be unapologetic about an opinion you are perfectly entitled to hold, where you didn't even have the courtesy to tell me, an individual who reserves the right to be hurt if you expressed this opinion to me, so that I had to hear it through my FRIEND.

So private school children don't mix with others when they are in employment? That's quite a presumption. Private education is about individual choice; you're presuming it's driven by elitism not wanting the best for one's children.

That’s a fair point, my post was deliberately quite generic.

I was responding to the PPs question about how we define net contributors and net recipients, rather than making an argument for trickle down economics. But your more detailed point is essential to debate.

My point was simply that some households contribute very substantial amounts in direct taxation and may therefore be net contributors.

I completely accept that there are limits to how much net contributors can contribute. As you point out, high earners are relatively few in number, and public finances ultimately depend on a broad and productive tax base rather than a small group carrying an ever increasing share of the burden. This is such an important point.

You’re quite right that the wider economic picture is more complex than that and includes numbers, scale, spending patterns and community/national economic activity.

So, @ilovesooty , @Quokkas and others,:

OP has told ys she was making assumptions rather than accusations about the VAT on school fees mum, alcohol abuse and smoking in the home. I do not see that she has addressed our question of the basis for these assumptions. Until she does, I am sticking with rank prejudice.

I would say the same thing if OP’s politics and the other woman’s were reversed.

Getting on for 24 hours since @GigglyOrange claimed that alcohol abuse and smoking would be going on in the home and she still hasn't been able to explain that statement.

Cool. I have seen similar posts to your on other subjects. But I did pick up, and mention, that you seemed aware it was the whole picture.

We could go the whole hog and do the stuff about how the wealthy take more out of the system because their wealth generation is facilitated by government spending.

I think re education, it could be said that a factory owner, for example' massively benefits from having an educated workforce. So they should, and do, contribute more. Same with roads etc. And we could carry on into how paying benefits to people in working is subsidising business.

It's a complex thing right enough. And oddly it does appear to be folk like the OP, who appears to be wealthy, who understand it least.

:-)

The flood of hate displayed on this thread surely confirms OP's decision was right? 🤔

What flood of hate ?

And in what way was the OP right ?

Given the voting here, and given that the UK is a democracy, it would appear the OP is in a minority with their views. Especially when considering that the OP is continuously misrepresenting what VAT is. Misrepresentation should be called out for what it is.

Flood of hate? Give over.

Yeah, the entire thread is dedicated to rousing a baying mob dedicated to crucifying small girls in boaters.🙄

How is asking someone to defend their positions hateful?

The problem is that OP sinks to ridiculous statements like her unsupported claim of alcohol abuse, the superiority of the parents at independent schools (no idea what she meant by that), sloppy statements about tax policy, calling people who disagree with her stupid, etc.

It is true that as she has done more and more of this, some of the replies have escalated.

No. @GigglyOrange made a statement that she has refused to evidence. Some of us are continuing to ask her to do so.

My plasterer and my carpet man were both privately educated. I once had a window salesman who was privately educated. How does that fit the hypothesis? I know 2 privately educated kids who became teachers, one in a rough school.
A lot of people working in formula 1 are privately educated. So are their children. I suppose we could argue that f1 is an elitist bubble. However, a lot of 'normal' people work in f1.

I wouldn’t call it a “flood of hate”. OPs outrage and attitude to differences of opinion has inspired strong reactions from PPs.

At the heart of responses has been that OPs, DD should not be denied a play date based on what fundamentally boils down to OPs prejudices.

The thread also addresses wealth, inequality, entitlement and demographics. There is a structural societal element to the thread. Public and private sector provisions, who pays and how are they paid,VAT, who contributes, personal choice, government policy and on and on.

Naturally these subjects inspire strong feelings in all of us. But these conversations are a good thing for those that wish to engage or just read along.

LOL there was enough hate before she got a chance to post a second message 😂

I’m agreeing with you! That was sarcasm! I think private education is unethical and widens inequality, but I don’t ‘hate’ anyone, certainly not those children of socially aspirant parents sent to private schools, who, after all, are blameless in the decision.

I don't think there was an outrage in the OP though? She only said "my instinct was", it's definitely not an outrage :)

Surely no one is obliged to socialise with people who support the gov doing harm to their children? It's not just "difference of opinion", it's the actual irreversible damage already done.

Some were poking fun at OP, and some of it was pretty funny. The harshest message actually says ‘grow up’.

That’s pretty mild compared to unsubstantiated claims of alcohol abuse and calling people who disagree with you stupid.

Sorry. Got the wrong end of the stick there.

That’s totally fair. I feel the same as you.

Quote : "Surely no one is obliged to socialise with people who support the gov doing harm to their children? It's not just "difference of opinion", it's the actual irreversible damage already done."

Statements like that do need evidence. Do you have evidence to support your statement ?