Would you be prepared to pay more tax to get better state education for all?

[happygardening]

Any other suggestions welcome to ensure that all where ever they live and whatever their background have access to education of the highest quality.

Do you not see how the "fucking cheek" comment has silenced people? You say that wasn't your intention....

Statistically the majority of familes have two working parents.

Of those that have a SAH parent, the vast majority are mothers. The increase in SAHDs is increasing but still, relatively, small in number.

But that's not my point. My point is when you're asking someone to pay more tax, why on earth wouldn't you speak to that person? Why would you bypass them for their partner?

Oh please.

We're all grown ups! If being told somehting is a fucking cheek, sends people scurrying off in horror, then God help them.

I was brought up never to ask someone to do somehting that you wouldn't, if you could, do yourself.

Constantly telling other people what they should do, becomes a corrosive habit.

The trouble is, that generally, adults don't use phrases like that to other adults. It's rude, you see. And not particularly informative. And makes any further conversation a bit tricky. If you know that's what your interlocutor thinks of you, it's a bit hard to move past it.

Hey ho.

"IME there is a strong link between poverty and being disinterested in education." Not in the developing world there isn't. Education is seen as a way out of poverty.

The most pertinent question in this whole debate imo is why education isn't seen as the way to better yourself and head up in the world in the UK.

I understand why you are proposing this Happygardening and completely agree that education is the way out of poverty. However, as a top rate tax payer, I would only support this if it was clearly targeted and some better management of costs was put in place.

"But that's not my point. My point is when you're asking someone to pay more tax, why on earth wouldn't you speak to that person? Why would you bypass them for their partner?"
The point I was trying to make is that most of us consider money earned and tax paid as a family, rathe than an individual thing. I pay no or little tax personally but my family unit does. And my share in the income and the tax burden varies as much as it would if I were also a tax payer.

No your husband does seeker. He is taxed as an individual and not a family unit.

My partner is taxed as an individual. And paid as an individual. Obviously. But what is left after tax is shared, and becomes family money. Therefore the tax is also a shared responsibility.

No .

Because more money does not guarantee higher standards if that is what you think.

Throwing money at something be it education, NHS or welfare is not the solution.

Be interested to know how you think more money means better education- what do you mean by 'better'?

Having been educated myself in the 60s in a very poor area of the UK I can tell you that money does not equal higher standards of teaching or pupil achievement.

As a former teacher who has taught in state and private schools I can also tell you that more money does not equal better schools.

Higher standards and achievement comes from teachers who perform well, backed up by parents who see the virtue of education and who support their children. Money doesn't come into it.

socareless I have no idea what % of people are looking after elderly relatives. Without exception, those elderly people I have known who have ended up in homes have had to sell their houses to pay for their care. So, not much support from the state there.

As well as paying more for education I would also like to see decent support for the elderly - these are people who probably endured the deprivations of the nineteen thirties, and then flogged their guts out during WW2 - but I am derailing the thread.

It's all a question of priorities - we seem to be able to find money to go to war at the drop of a hat, we found money to bail out the banks when they made a mess, so we could afford education and health care if the will was there.

I really can't see what all this bashing of seeker and examination of her tax status is doing to further the debate. It was interesting, it's getting a bit boring now. Can't people have a theoretical debate in this country without having to bring it back to specifics.

The debate was interesting I mean, not seeker's tax status!

wordfactory - my father was one of these apparently overworked doctors who would resent paying higher tax, yet he taught me my values. You clearly only know whingeing surgeons.

Perhaps women shouldn't become surgeons if they resent being away from their children so much?

Anyway, I like my idea if charging a token to all citizens. Perhaps when people pay out of pocket they will place more value on education. The problems won't all disappear but some will lessen.

My father worked incredibly long hours to look after his patients and provide for his family, he also deeply disapproved of the Tory tax cutting agenda and felt that modern society had become far too obsessed with personal profit (preferably for minimum effort) over societal gain. Such people do exist. Whilst I am inclined to be more selfish, I can't forget the fact that my own father was willing to give a lot in a lot of ways and not go round complaining about having to pay tax to benefit "scroungers."

Well that is your dad's opinion and if anyone feels so strongly about it they can get a job and hand their whole pay check to hmrc not impose their views on others. Charity should be voluntary.

So the social care bill is not going to be a huge problem in future Magellan? Wonder what all the fuss is then in my LA.

That was to lavolcan

rabbit
I don't regard SAHP as lazy at all, DH was a SAHD for a couple of years. My point was a bit more general, that the default option should not always be that the net contributors pay more because I do see that as abdicating responsibility for the problem to others.

There are people (and this is not aimed at anyone on this thread) who are very quick to declare "something should be done" but don't think it should be done by them.

Although, if you think more tax should be raised for any given thing, you're surely implicitly saying that you too would pay it, if earning beyond the appropriate threshold?

I think it's very problematic to correlate people's right to comment with the amount of tax they pay. Where would you stop: higher rate tax payers only to comment on this issue? Nobody who's never had to pay, say, inheritance tax?

I don't think people should have their right to comment "means tested".

Or is that downright insolent/insubordinate/fucking cheeky....?

Chaz