Going private doesn't 'help' the NHS or state education??

[tryingtobemarrypoppins2]

I really don't know if it is BU to think this! Came up in a rather heated conversation over a meal out with pals last night.....

My thought was "thats a mad suggestion and private anything is unfair on those that can't efford it" but on listening to others soon realised I had no idea at all! Slightly out of my depth!

Perhaps this should be AIBU to vote when I don't know much about politics!

ISNT, it sounds like you do loads for your kids' education. That makes your kids very lucky and privileged. They will be lucky and privileged no matter what school they go to, won't they?

You can't make it equal by having them educated alongside the disengaged. Your kids will do vastly better at school than those kids will no matter how well intended your attempt to equalise education.

I was educated along with those kids and I can't see how it benefited them or me.

I'm not pro-private schools by the way, though I may sound it I suppose. I just had all these mantras drummed into me as a child, and now I can see the other side of it.

But it is not just the ultra rich using private.

It's a very small amount of the larger population though no?

I don't agree Morris. I have not deliberately chosen to educate my dd with the disengaged. We actually really liked the school when we viewed it although we were aware of the intake. But now she is there and things have gone tits up so to speak, I think it would be wrong for us to flee like rats from a drowning ship.

' think you should pay extra tax on private school fees and private health insurance. If you can buy yourself up a waiting list'

My father's life was saved by being able to pay to go privately. He was undoubtedly the victim of age discrimination on the NHS. He would be dead now if he hadn't paid for his heart treatment.

Perhaps you might just think about that. An old man who has worked all his life who managed to put away enough money to save himself when the NHS failed him.

I think the state owes HIM a rebate, tbh.

Pootles - there has been a 2-week rule for suspected cancer for several years now. Sounds like your Dad's GP is shilling for the private oncology boys!

It is a small amount , about 7% although of course that depends on where you live. Here for example it must be much higher. But it is a powerful group.

But, Morris, if ISNT kicks up a fuss and gets things improved, they will improve for all the children in that school/class - including the 'disengaged' childen.

Abride of course it is wrong that your father had to use the private system but I don't think asking for a rebate would make it any better.

As I said above we had to use the private system and we did not have the money to pay for it after a while. We had to borrow thousands which eventually meant we could no longer own our own home. We have just managed to pay off all the debt but it means we are starting back from square one again. But I don't want a rebate I just want it changed so no one else has to do the same.

I was only joking (a bit) about the rebate! I was just cross they were effectively telling him that he wasn't a real priority. And watching the effect on my mother of all the strain was just terrible.

I am still angry about it now tbh. It just doesn't seem fair that they had to pay. Thank God they could, though.

bruxeur - its possible that my dad was ill more than a few years ago now i think about it - i was at uni at the time i might be slightly in denial about my age. so probably about five years ago now... but i didn't know that about the 2 week rule. How reassuring!

But - my point was, there are serious problems within the nhs that aren't petty niggles.

I totally get the angry feeling, I was furious at the time and it still makes my blood boil to think about how I have disadvantaged my family by being ill. My dp has no pension now, God knows how we will fund our retirement as we probably won't own our own home and will be living off my pension.

There are lots of good arguments. State provision of most things might be morally wrong because thes tate does everything worse than the private sector and therefore we damage children by having state schools at all is one argument.

Another one is the one above that we relieve the state system because we pay twice and spare the state pupils from being sullied by our private school educated off spring (unless I suppose you think my children are so wonderful that having them next to your state educated little darling in class will rub off the glorious glow of my children on to the other in the class... not)

What we should have is a system where once you've paid say £20k a year tax you get a gold card which means you can get the first doctor's appointments, best serviec in the state system if you choose to use it, best state school places - a sort of loyalty card, hero of the people medal- people bowing down to Xenia because she's paid so much in tax to help so many of the poor, keeping so many mumnetters on their benefits, keeping them from starvation. Akll hail the higher tax payers.. .but we don't have that . Instead this Government of the envious has chosen to drive the rich from these shores and the only people who will suffer will be the poor.

Yes--it's very wrong that you had to do that, wastwinset. Though, obviously, it was the only course you COULD take and you had no choice.

Yes Xenia I start every day thinking I must teach my class in a manner inferior to those in the independent school up the road.

You are on top form today by the way.

I'm not sure I would agree with that, Xenia. Why should the city banker be able to push ahead of the vicar just because he's paid more tax? To the vicar's congregation (probably elderly and sick, many of them) the vicar is a hugely important part of their lives.

LOL, and there goes the punch line.

Was waiting for you with bated breath Xenia!

How about loyalty cards go to people who do voluntary work or are carers or contribute to society unpaid?

Bugger- was going to post and I see from Xenia's post it has descended into farce already.

That was remarkably quick, though. I'm impressed.

If I pay a lot more tax than others posting on the thread I am helping many more people and the state. If people like me decided to work only so hard that we generated say £10k a year in tax everyone else would suffer. Now I could of course choose to lotus eat and for plenty £51.1% + tax/NI is the tipping point for not bothering to work much harder and instead get on with sitting around doing nothing because why work if most of what you earn goes to the benefit claimants.

We live in a capitalist economy and have chosen that system because it works best. It decides that cleaners and housewives aren't worth very much and nor are vicars but that others with rarer skills like some footballers, opera singer stars and even people like me are worth a lot more.

But the question was whether it benefits the poor if the rich avoid the state education system. Yes, it does because there are 93% of other people who can't afford fees many of whom are bright and middle class who are in the state system and only a few of whom have children who disrupt classes so the 7% in the state system are de minimis. You needn't bother about us. We can keep conning ourselves that the lakes and civilised other parents and even the A level grades our children get are a price worth paying.

Perhaps children in private schools should be allowed to take up their state school place. They can then designate it for a poor foreign child they bring over from Africa and sponsor. Or else they can sell it on or else at the least be able to use that place to give their own chidlren free entrance for exam board fees rather than having to pay exam entrance fees for A2 etc at the private school.

"It decides that cleaners and housewives aren't worth very much and nor are vicars but that others with rarer skills like some footballers, opera singer stars and even people like me are worth a lot more."

Well, you are priceless, Xenia

its hardly feasible that one would work only so hard as to earn so little that their tax pays for their nhs or educational use as people don't function that way. they earn as much as they are able to afford the life they lead. this includes holidays, holiday homes, first homes, cars etc.

Now if it were compulsory for everyone to use the nhs and state educational system, the systems would change as the rich wouldn't put up with the utter shite that normal people suffer. so they would use their power and influence to change things to afford their children and families better healthcare and education.

not that this would ever happen. however it illustrates that the argument of 'i opt out and pay more taxes leaving the plebs more resources' is total codswallop

Xenia,

I don't geddit. Why not work 5% of your hours then and let a further 15 people do the same (housewives and vicars to supplement their incomes) and so benefit from the high hourly rate? Same tax gets paid but more people benefit.

How could you legall prevent my flying abroad to get health care or educating my children at home with excellent tutors? Unless we want to be North Korea I can't see how you could impose that ban.

I use the state health system and don't have health insurance but I would and have paid if I wanted some private provision from time to time. I've only ever used an NHS dentist etc. I am not sure how my local dentist really benefits from seeing the 5 children and I on the NHS but may be having the privilege to look at our teeth somehow ensures the service if of a higher standard.

I don't agree that people would always earn more. I know huge numbers of people who have said to me 50%+ is tipping point. I'd rather not have the second holiday and spend my weekends with the family rather than working alld ay Saturday or Sunday whereas 40% was just about tolerable unless they can render income capital and pay the much lower CGT which many if they are clever enough as to how they structure things can. All good money for accountants. I would certainly rather partners at Ernst & YOung had my wealth than Gordon Brown to waste on wars and state benefits.

Most people go private, because the service on the NHS is crap and its not just the people who can afford it, that go private.

So suggestion that opting out provides a better service for the people left behind is bull shit.