If labour win the election can they introduce VAT immediately?

[londonparent321]

(For school fees) Or do they need to go through the courts which could take years /never happen?

So unless you experience being punched at school, you have no idea about other parts of society? This is a ridiculous argument. Plenty of people at state school don’t get punched, and I’m sure that some at private school have!

Exactly.
Labours 20%tax will reduce diversity from a financial perspective.
There’s absolutely no question of that happening.
It will also make excellent state schools and grammars harder to get into as previous and prospective private school parents have more money to buy up houses and pay for private tuition to get their kids a place.

Labour are being very short sighted.

It isn't just about economics but economic diversity is a big element of diversity and if it is absent from a school then it simply can't be diverse. A multi millionaire is not a marginalised group and is a tiny percentage of the population, understanding and emphasising with a group of people that are incredibly privileged adds nothing to your understanding of the world.

Talk about twisting my points.

The diversity is based all upon wealth so yes, you get to experience the company of the wealthiest from another country, international students who are very wealthy hardly offer the insight to the diversity of the countries they have come from.

Why would you possibly come to the conclusion that there is no ethnic, race, religious or even gender diversity in state schools, of course there is. Also zero return to a different culture in the holidays are you sure about that!

Read everyone’s posts !

Its been explained nothing is absent from the schools whereas it is, in fact, from state schools.
Private schools have both economic and cultural diversity made available through things such as bursaries, exhibitions and scholarships.

Obviously it’s skewed in favour of the wealthy, it’s their fees paying for the free places.

Obviously an understanding from the perspective of people from all walks of life is an incredible privilege that can only enhance society. Just ignoring one section of society and wrongly assuming they add nothing to a students understanding of the world is very very shortsighted.

There are many students for universities where I live and the richest students appear to have electric Porsches at 20 years old, hardly a lesson on diversity, just another globally rich young person that is no different from a young rich person with an expensive car in another country.

Did I just see someone saying that state schools aren't diverse because there aren't any children of multimillionaires there?

🤔This thread parodies itself

Also here to state read the posts.
I said those who live abroad.

Read the posts here on those that don’t pay. It’s not all the rich.

I give up @Goldenbear. You have no understanding of a section of society that you are criticising. No understanding what so ever.

Sorry, yes, fee paying schools, beacons of economic equality 🙄

I think if people had an opportunity to go around private schools ( and many do do tours, offer free lectures and stuff ) then they would actually see their preconceived opinions were wrong. It might open peoples eyes a little.

Clear case of diversity training needed!

I absolutely do have an understanding as I have close family and friends using private schools. I went to one but granted that was a long time ago.

I am not criticising, I am trying to open your eyes to what is happening to other people in this country and the world and why they don't see this as an issue but there is just no awareness of that and seemingly no desire for one. I think that is sad for societies children, most of whom do not get to experience this 'privilege' as you have just highlighted.

You did, it is the minority group - the super rich🙄

Again.! 😳
You are not reading my post.!😳

I said it’s skewed towards the more wealthy !!! Did you not read that?!!!
Their money is needed to give free places. Just as their money is also paying for state schools.
They are happy to pay twice.

Your comment smacks of one grasping at straws now!!!. 😳

Really should be a protected characteristic

Just playing devil's advocate but given that I went to a very deprived state school and you had the privilege of going to a private school, following your logic, I must have a much better grasp of what is going on in this world?

Why all the envy here
If parents are happy to pay twice for education and that payment benefits state schools and free places at private as well, why can’t they.

Its just the same as paying for the dentist or private health care or those able to put more into their pensions. Ultimately in different ways some paying twice, or more, will benefit those that pay once or not at all.

They will also be paying the higher rate taxes and overall more into the system aswel as they’ll need to be earning more to afford their lifestyle of generally going private.

An overall financial win win in real terms.

I was at state schools for all of my education as well,
so I too must have a broader view of society. I’m not very artistic though……..!

@Minymile ,

‘Why all the envy here’

Thinking VAT is fair can be literally that, not envy at all.

‘An overall financial win win in real terms.’

It’s a lot more complex than that. Yes, in terms of short term thinking, the wealthy opting out of public education and health is a win.

However, would the health service have been allowed to decline so drastically if you knew you didn’t have another safety net. And would the government have cynically asked schools to foot the bill for an increase in teachers’ salaries if MP’s children had to go to the local comp.

The wealthy locking themselves behind barred gates and having as little interaction with ‘normal’ people as possible is leading to a fractured society. Long term, this will also have negative financial implications.

Yes, I think (I know) some wealthy people that see the worsening situation, bigger picture here and are voting Labour, they are not who you would be expecting to vote Labour either and didn't in the last election.

I disagree. It is a financial win win.

The more you earn the more you pay in real terms.
The more you pay in real terms supports more people in real terms.
If we all earned less than 41k ( the point at which you are a financial net loss to society…see prev posts ) and no one paid twice for anything the country wouldn’t survive.

This fractured society is down to a lack of understanding and a me me culture. That stands for both sides on the financial divide, it is not exclusive.

We need high earners, we need people prepared to pay twice. Or we need to tax everyone a lot more.

My artistic comment is totally taken out of context, I was commenting on my personal circumstances, DD is a talented Artist in spite of school, definitely not because of it. She would not suit the long days of private school as she is better off with pursuing music and art in her leisure time, not in a prescribed way. My DH is an Architect on big projects and when designing social housing is invested in good design for everybody, not just the very rich. We have both known an array of people and it informs your interactions, your empathy and your street smartness if im honest.

Yes, I went to private school but had to leave at 12 and was thrown in the deep end at a huge London comprehensive akin to Grange Hill (worse) and needless to say I didn't have a clue before!

@Minymile ,

So your optimum society would consist of super high earners serviced by worker drones who needed additional support? Did you think Brave New World was an instruction manual?

Inequality is not considered an economic positive by any proper economists.

If everyone earned less than 41k, that would cease to be the equilibrium point. Things would be a lot cheaper, especially housing and services.

I have historically voted labour
however I won’t this time because

1. tax on private schools will lead to an overall financial loss to the state.
2. Starmer thinks women can have penises an attitude that will lead to a loss in womens rights
3. Labours change to the ceasefire agreement ie ‘ only applies if hamas stop their violence’ makes no allowances for Israeli settler violence and Israel believe a 2yr old throwing a stone is indeed hamas being violent. So Labours change only benefitted Israel.

Im waiting to see if I agree with any further policies that outweigh the importance of the ones above.