Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 6

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuation of previous threads to discuss VAT on independent school fees.

One issue with risk taking and innovation is that it is not always clear who is really taking the risks, and sometimes the rewards are given prematurely and then you can’t take them back when it transpires you have rewarded something phenomenally destabilising and harmful, in which you were part of the mass experiment. In the end, therefore, one company, or individual, or group of people, may be rewarded for putting everyone but themselves at risk, and making themselves so wealthy and powerful in the process, that they then have free rein to inflict even more harm, and the deluded self-belief to keep inflicting it.

Can you think of an example? You may have something in mind.

On the flip side risk and reward has driven a lot of progress and we’re enjoying some of that today.

Recent examples of money making/risk taking with other people’s physical and mental health - social media for youngsters, without appropriate checks and balances, and vapes. For my generation (end of Gen X) it was boozing/binge drinking/raves. For Boomers, it was smoking and they definitely let tobacco companies get away with full on enticement.

The point is I am a Europhile now, where university is still largely free and people do not commoditise and pay for tutoring, en masse, moving into catchment, Russell Group uni marketing/Ivy league type nonsense, in any way as much as they do in the UK/US - both countries also have a 24/7 order on demand uber eat entitlement culture. And are pretty anti intelligentsia, on the whole, compared to many European countries. I mean the suspicion towards intellect, Education for Education’s sake. Taxing private schools is not some sort of Marxist win. It is forcing age old charitable institutions to become businesses - it is weird. France or Spain or Germany would never do that.

Americans also love a school district/league tables. It is not even a concept in much of Europe, basic standards and safeguarding, yes - massive Angst over league tables, no. There is not much social media anxiety about school branding in most of Europe. Which extends to sough after state schools in the UK too. That is why the MN Education board is so busy.

Thanks @TopographicalTime. That's really interesting: especially the amounts considered an acceptable cost. And a great example of how decision-makers do indeed quantify even directly saving a life.

It's true that this has been a fair derail! It developed when I challenged two wrong assertions:

1.That lower income people pay more VAT than higher income people, and therefore imposing additional VAT on 'rich' people (by the rather dubious proxy of taxing non-state-funded, compulsory school-age education) was justified, regardless of consequences.

In fact, it's a myth that people with lower income pay more VAT, which you can see from the charts from the ONS I posted on 1/6 22:38

2.That even if the VAT policy ends up being a net cost to HMRC - which is looking more and more likely - then it would still be worthwhile, since society having "less inequality" (despite also having less education) would "certainly bring both economic and social benefits".

I pointed out that without quantifying those benefits - or having any evidence that they would accrue - it was magical thinking and guesswork to say that they would "certainly" be worth the direct financial cost to HMRC of the policy.

Then @walkabout went full-on anti-capitalism... I tried to explain why some of the things she objects to actually make sense, using basic economics... and @KendricksGin declared that economics doesn’t work anyway because you can't quantify how amazing her DD is (who is training to become a doctor).

A fairly standard couple of days on this thread!

Does this also answer your question @tortoise18? If you don’t find this interesting, why are you hanging out here?

Yes, of course risk and reward drives progress, I’m not against it at all - it’s essential- I’m just opposed to getting the balance wrong. We need risk takers and innovators. We need people who are more cautious, more caring, more analytical. We need thinkers and we need practical skills. Luckily for humans, we have all these features, but none of them reside in the same person, they are spread out. Societies more genuinely successful than ours are better at recognising and valuing all attributes, and not disproportionately rewarding one type of behaviour to the extent that behaviour is no longer being helpful.

I have in mind the as one candidate, the global financial crash. There were huge rewards there for people who were not taking personal risks, they were just being rewarded for using the wealth of others to hide risks and pass them on, and then get huge bonuses for doing so. When they lost track of who was holding the risks in their massive game of “Old Maid,” it wasn’t the people who took the risks who really suffered the consequences. I also have in mind Open AI. Artificial intelligence has many colossal potential benefits to society, but I don’t think the large language model is the type of AI that will actually benefit us (it’s not this type of AI that will solve human-induced climate change, it’s more the sort that will talk us all into killing ourselves), and its current development is basically a massive form of theft. Also, many companies are not innovative at all - they make their money for shareholders and then massively reward their CEOs for cutting corners and focusing on destroying competition, not always by being better, but sometimes just by being bigger and more powerful, or too big to fail.

I think we are living in a lopsided world, where people have forgotten we need all sorts. We have lost faith in each other. Successful societies have more trust, and societies with more trust share their resources better.

(I accidentally missed out creativity and entertainment - we definitely need those, too!).

Successful societies don’t tax education, don’t introduce policies to close schools and narrow education options and don’t have politicians who paint 7% of the societies children as ‘not ours’ and some sort of tax dodgers.

(I missed out creativity and a love of nature - we need these things, too!).

Successful societies certainly don’t divide to rule.

Exactly

I agree the policy does this. Sadly people have bought into it for division reasons.

There is nuance. If you are talking about only high level broad brush strategy and guidelines then NICE quantification is indeed a thing. However, this is quite different from such thinking in a case by case clinical situation.

It is a bit rich you mocking my "amazing" daughter when your own is so special that you have said that no state school, however good, would be good enough for her. However, I do understand that my daughter's achievements must be quite galling without a penny spent on private schooling so I'll be the bigger person. Snipe away.

The real problem here is the division private sector vs public sector.

Education & health free at the point of delivery and born cost wise by the collective is not FREE is not better or worse or more virtuous either.

A doctor working for the NHS is not doing something more virtuous than working privately. Neither is a teacher working in a state or private school.

This is the fakest policy a Government have come up with in the last 50 years. Apart from Brexit. It is mind blowing.

“However, I do understand that my daughter's achievements must be quite galling without a penny spent on private schooling so I'll be the bigger person.”

@KendricksGin - no you are showing your true colours, I am afraid. Your DD’s achievements are not necessarily better because of the type of school she went to! How ridiculous. As if that is only ever a tiny part of the equation for each child!

Those sorts of posts don’t help the debate I agree.

I think it’s great when dc do well whether it’s state or private. The galling part is the gov’s poor policy.

Nothing to do with true colours, although I could say that about some of your posts from yesterday. My comment was in response to a typical snarky ad hominem attack on my DD by strawberry. Of course school has an impact and my DD went to an excellent state one. My point was that no state school would be good enough for Strawberry's "amazing" DD.

Well maybe you should look at who started ridiculing posters' children.

I'm not mocking your DD @KendricksGin , I'm mocking your obsession with the medical profession and your DD's future place in it, and the fact you keep bringing it up and expecting us to be awed.

I'll be the bigger person
😂😂😂

There's your spectacular lack of self-awareness again!

If you're rude to people (which you are) then you should expect that they will decline to massage your ego.

Umm, that will be you.

Like I said, I've never mocked your DD - only you.

You on the other hand, have repeatedly made digs not only at me (which is fine) but also about my DD.

True colours indeed.

You have a point. For the most part people can discuss amicably on this thread.

@Walkaround they are good examples. I have thought we enjoyed the high risk exposure pre 08 crash, not least the politicians in power who could talk of boom. But then there’s bust. Particularly high for an over exposed FS.

On the plus side some regulation were introduced to lower repeat. Although I recall new products being sold at the end of a book on it.

On AI it’s inevitable, I think there are push and pull forces that will keep adjusting. I hope as humans we can get it on the right side of useful to us.

Mea culpa.

I shall refrain from reacting any further to @KendricksGin

I didn't mention my daughter. You did (with a snarky "amazing" label). It's not the first time you have made similar comments about her being at medical school. Very odd and very chippy.

I have zero interest in your daughter. It's your 'no state school, however good would have been good enough for her' stance that I find amusing.

I neither need your approval nor am I obsessed with the medical profession. However, the future of the NHS is a huge issue for me, which is entirely different. A much bigger one than this niche VAT one, which you in turn seem to be obsessed with.

Delighted not to be engaging with you further.

I’ll take a doctor over a hedgie anyday.

Some of you seem to be buying into the ‘effective altruism’ hypothesis in which the more you make, assuming you pay tax on it, the better your contribution to society.

Firstly, we end up where we are, where so many bright people want to work in the city or law that we have a massive shortage of teachers and doctors (and nurses), so that only the rich and influential get decent medical care.

And the ‘loads-a-money’ culture of a lot at the top of society isn’t conducive to a civilised nation. You can’t simultaneously celebrate the city and bemoan the lack of an intelligentsia.

Where is the missed tax from the FS coming from if reduced?

ETA I don’t relate to @Newbutoldfatherposts. I wouldn’t frame it in that way. But I’d love more economics education generally.