Play date with mum who agrees with education tax

[BonnuitMy]

Please let me know if I’m overreacting. I recently overheard a new mum at school talking about a local private school closing down due to the education tax and how this is somehow a good thing. She’s now invited my DD for a play date, would you accept?

‘Weird’ ‘whacko’ ‘schizophrenic’
I see you still haven’t strained that hyperbole muscle.

@cardibach

You are OK with the tax revenue being next to nothing.
Would you be OK with it being negative?

Let's say it's zeroish.
Why would you be OK with it?

As a vindictive policy against those who have more money than you?

Do you think taxing a few of those people more would achieve.... what, exactly? You said it's not about the money. So it's about.... what?
A vendetta?
A sense of personal gratification for sticking it to the rich?

You say you want more fairness. Great! But how would any of this achieve more fairness?

IF it had been proven that this tax change would have raised significant revenue and IF that money had been set aside to reinvest in state schools, maybe. But none of these "ifs" apply.

Can you please help me understand?

Nope. That’s not what the OP says. It’s says she was talking about it being a good thing.
Even if she was gleeful, you are not seriously saying that having that belief is the same as being a violent hooligan?
Your hyperbole hurts your position.

Not as a vindictive policy, no. Why do apologists for classism and privilege always think everyone envies them and wants to hurt them?
No. As a policy to take out one of the elements which perpetuates an unequal society - because I want everyone to have the same chances.

@cardibach Not as a vindictive policy, no. Why do apologists for classism and privilege always think everyone envies them and wants to hurt them?

Ha ha ha ha ha... Apologists for classism and privilege? Get a grip, mate.
In what way would I have justified classism and privilege?
I have pointed out facts. And facts have this odd tendency not to care about your feelings...

No. As a policy to take out one of the elements which perpetuates an unequal society - because I want everyone to have the same chances.

How would they take what out, though?

The schools of the super rich will remain.
The only effect will be that some families, who were certainly better off than average but were no oligarchs, will send their kids to state school instead of private.
This also includes families of special needs children whose special needs are not met by state schools, but who cares, right?

How would this achieve social justice, take out one of the elements etc etc?

Can you answer with evidence, not with insults and slogans? Thank you!

You don’t think independent education entrenches class and privilege? Ok then.
No point in reading the rest of that if you don’t believe the basics of my position.

because I want everyone to have the same chances.

That’s not remotely realistic and anyone who thinks it is is deluded. A child born into a stable family with loving parents, a well educated family, financially secure, surrounded by books, lots of experiences outside the home, travel etc will always have a leg up in life compared with those without those things. Should we whack a 20% tax on books because not everyone can afford them, or should we ban them in homes altogether because some children don’t have that privilege? A good place to start with “equality” would be with the state education system where 93% go. The difference between the best and worst state schools is vast.

I don’t believe you’re a teacher. Working with children and pretending to have their best interests in mind (whose parents have trusted their children with you) whilst spending your lunch time posting on social media that their school should be closed down? No way. I think you have some naive and maybe even delusional ideas but you don’t come across as a sociopath.

All that is true but is it going to change if nobody challenges any of the parts of it? Should we throw our hands up and say ‘some children will have no chances and that’s just how it is’? Or should we try to improve things? Attack inequality one bit at a time.

You are conveniently dodging inconvenient questions you cannot answer? How surprising...

I'll say it again: most of the advantage that private school kids benefit from stems from a combination of family wealth, connection, education, experiences which the family wealth buys, etc.
A private education adds to that but not a huge amount.

Even if you send those kids to state schools, those advantages will still remain.
So you tackle it by giving more opportunities to state school kids, by forcing employers to disclose statistics on gender and social inequality, by banning unpaid internships, by getting employers to select candidates based on blind CVs that don't disclose if the applicant went to Oxbridge or to a post-92 ex-poly now university, etc. These things have a real impact.

But forcing some families to go to state schools?

Could you please kindly explain what that would achieve?
It's the second time I ask. Soon I'll be forced to think you refuse to answer because you have no good answer...

So you do think we should challenge the privilege of some children having books? Or are you happy with privilege up to a point? Where do you draw the line? Are the things your children have acceptable, but anything beyond that should be stamped out?

most of the advantage that private school kids benefit from stems from a combination of family wealth, connection, education, experiences which the family wealth buys, etc.
A private education adds to that but not a huge amount.
Even if you send those kids to state schools, those advantages will still remain.

Exactiy. It’s ok for state school pupils to have those privileges, but not private school pupils. Honestly, proponents of this policy end up tying themselves in knots with their attempts at justifying it.

No, you are dodging.
Do you think independent , fee paying schools give some children opportunities others don’t on the basis of their parents’ income or not?
Because if you do, they are inherently unfair, aren’t they?
It’s pretty simple.

Don’t be silly. Fee paying education and books are very different things.
I am in favour of libraries offering books to everyone at zero cost, but that’s not quite the same as owning the book. There’s no free alternative to that. So no VAT on books. There’s a free alternative to fee paying education.
Im not sure what you mean about things my children have. You have no idea what my (singular) child had growing up, for a start.

What you don’t seem to get is that we would like all kids to have those advantages. While it’s not possible, we’d like not to make it worse by giving better off kids even more before we help the least well off.

Do you think independent , fee paying schools give some children opportunities others don’t on the basis of their parents’ income or not?
Because if you do, they are inherently unfair, aren’t they?
It’s pretty simple.

Do you think a child born into a stable family with loving parents, a well educated family, financially secure, surrounded by books, lots of experiences outside the home, travel etc give some children opportunities others don’t on the basis of their parents income or not? Because if you do, they are inherently unfair, aren’t they? As you say, it’s pretty simple.

Do you think that a child born into that situation, who excels academically, has an advantage over a struggling SEN child whose parents scrimp and save to pay relatively low school fees? Which child is most advantaged?

How are you “giving better off kids even more”? Privately educated children cost the state precisely zero. A state educated child costs the state £8k per year. Where is the sense of increasing taxation on struggling families with SEN children, who the state have failed, but not increasing the tax burden of millionaires who use the state system?

There’s. No. Need. To. Make. Those. Divisions. Worse. By. Allowing. A. Privileged. Education. Which. Others. Can’t. Afford.

I give up. I’m going to hide this thread. If you don’t want to accept the bloody obvious there’s no point.

It is absolutely a moral and ethical issue.
But do keep telling yourself that it's merely an economic one, if it eases your conscience a little.

I agree.
I'm going to hide it, too.
There's no arguing with arrogant.

Understood loud and clear. You’re fine with any privilege except independent education, which many use because they can’t access a suitable state education, whereas other children can.

It’s not arrogant to point out that privilege and inequality runs far deeper than the education of 7% of children. It’s arrogant to try and defend and deny the privilege that exists far beyond private education.

That’s for the best, you need to have a good hard think about things. This is children’s lives you’ve been discussing, you wouldn’t tell a classroom of 6 year olds you want their school closed down because they’re ‘privilliged’ . Ask yourself why.

@cardibach No, you are dodging.
Do you think independent , fee paying schools give some children opportunities others don’t on the basis of their parents’ income or not?
Because if you do, they are inherently unfair, aren’t they?
It’s pretty simple.

I didn't dodge, I said it very clearly multiple times. If you reply without reading it's not my fault.
Private schools do give some advantages, but they are not the main nor the crucial ones. Most of the advantages that rich kids benefit from come from family money, family education, family connections, etc, and, guess what, those remain the same even if those kids go to state schools.

What you don’t seem to get is that we would like all kids to have those advantages. While it’s not possible, we’d like not to make it worse by giving better off kids even more before we help the least well off.

I get it, but you're focusing on the wrong things.
I am not going to ask again how forcing a handful of families to go to state schools, while the mega rich will continue to go to Eaton, will change anything, because it's clear you are unable to answer this simple question.

I would simply like to remind you that I, who live in the real world, have made very practical examples on how to tackle inequality, like banning unpaid internships and selecting candidates with blind CVs.

Ask yourself why

their parents made a choice to go private and now can’t afford it?

So many threads on this site where struggling poor parents are told to get a better paid job or take in ironing - do that!