Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
Louis Balfour said:
I was referring to a specific Italian deal in Puglia. However common sense suggests that any deal, anywhere, is unlikely to be peanuts tax forever. Or at least unless “anywhere” is seriously compromised somehow.
Ah. Personally, I wouldn't go near Puglia. As lovely as it is there is a reason they are trying to attract affluent immigration. The area has always been difficult to get to, even internally the young have a long journey to leave and live in a city to have any future and externally you are at the mercy of people like Michael OLeary as to whether you can arrive or leave. The other slight issue is that it is fast becoming where they deposit thousands of refugees from all the Med crossings. Tens of thousands arrive in Lampedusa and are then distributed into the mainland of which the Puglia region is a core recipient. As an aside, any Brit who is currently emotional over a few rubber dinghies crossing the Channel really ought to go to Sicily and see a real refugee crisis and how there is a genuine problem in Europe.
By odd coincidence I stumbled across this in the FT moments ago.
M1AGM said:
Putting aside the Guardian level of journalism these days (its not a tax loophole, the picture is of harrow boys, etc) I thought this merited conversation:
“But official Department for Education (DfE) data published last week shows that as of this January, the number of pupils in independent schools in England was 593,486, up from 591,954 the year before and an increase of 24,150 on 2020/21.”
Is 1,500 more out of 591,000 significant in a year, and what is the trend? I would argue it’s too early to see the full attrition from this policy because there will be families with children who are already in private school, who have younger siblings who would normally go to the same school, and will be the bulk of the intakes. As a parent you will cut everything you could to afford to do that. Newcomers not so much.
The labour claim that the justification for this envy tax is to recruit 6,500 more teachers has already been dismissed as fantasy as there are over 2,000 teacher vacancies now that cannot be filled and the trend is rising. What we need is an apolitical commission to put together workable policies to fix teacher retention, 40% of teachers quit in the first 2 years. So plenty would have liked to be teaching but gave up after trying. It’s frustrating that all parties seem incapable of being pragmatic over education, which is the future of our nation.
In other news we got an email from school offering a discount for prepayment of fees. The email was very clear it made no guarantees on future tax situations and was not offering financial advice etc. Policy was always no discounts for prepayments so I am quite happy to take the offer, I decided to pay the 2 years of 6th form for the oldest child to finish off 15 years of that commitment. Quite liberating.
Guardian level of journalism instantly makes you look like a dick. I could say the same about the telegraph and be much more accurate. Leave it out.“But official Department for Education (DfE) data published last week shows that as of this January, the number of pupils in independent schools in England was 593,486, up from 591,954 the year before and an increase of 24,150 on 2020/21.”
Is 1,500 more out of 591,000 significant in a year, and what is the trend? I would argue it’s too early to see the full attrition from this policy because there will be families with children who are already in private school, who have younger siblings who would normally go to the same school, and will be the bulk of the intakes. As a parent you will cut everything you could to afford to do that. Newcomers not so much.
The labour claim that the justification for this envy tax is to recruit 6,500 more teachers has already been dismissed as fantasy as there are over 2,000 teacher vacancies now that cannot be filled and the trend is rising. What we need is an apolitical commission to put together workable policies to fix teacher retention, 40% of teachers quit in the first 2 years. So plenty would have liked to be teaching but gave up after trying. It’s frustrating that all parties seem incapable of being pragmatic over education, which is the future of our nation.
In other news we got an email from school offering a discount for prepayment of fees. The email was very clear it made no guarantees on future tax situations and was not offering financial advice etc. Policy was always no discounts for prepayments so I am quite happy to take the offer, I decided to pay the 2 years of 6th form for the oldest child to finish off 15 years of that commitment. Quite liberating.
Edited by M1AGM on Saturday 15th June 17:00
Edited by M1AGM on Saturday 15th June 17:01
It's not an envy tax. That is privileged twit commentary. Envy of what? Ask yourself.
Now in the real world anyone taking their children out of private education now are not doing so because of labour policies. Maybe out of a fear of them but not because of them. No policy has happened yet. Many failing schools are being picked up as causes of labour policies by the right wing press with no evidence because idiots will believe the bulls
t.There won't be a flood, I'm sure of that. There might be a very vocal few.
Why do parents sacrifice many of their earnings rather than supporting the state school system? Because they want advantage. When the advantage becomes more difficult to achieve (guess what you were always dependent on the opinion of others to get it) tough s
t. I don't enjoy the reality dawning but I think it was about time. I also think it won't be as bad as the seers are predicting but they've vested interests in saying it's doom.
Louis Balfour said:
Me neither, but the headline did its job and I looked into it.
By odd coincidence I stumbled across this in the FT moments ago.
Portugal ran one of those after the GFC. I think that at any given time at least one EU member is pitching deals for minted pensioners from elsewhere. We ought to replace the non Dom setup with this sort of thing to get some folks to move to Jaywick and tidy it up? By odd coincidence I stumbled across this in the FT moments ago.
or to just entice retired folk in the SE to head back to the regions?okgo said:
Via a mate - Heard about one of the best schools in the U.K. going through their entire waiting list and then onto reserves to fill a place for September reception - totally unheard of for this to happen - times not looking so good…apart from his kid of course.
I've heard the same in my area - some excellent schools are going to struggle to stay open.State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
cheesejunkie said:
Guardian level of journalism instantly makes you look like a dick. I could say the same about the telegraph and be much more accurate. Leave it out.
It's not an envy tax. That is privileged twit commentary. Envy of what? Ask yourself.
Now in the real world anyone taking their children out of private education now are not doing so because of labour policies. Maybe out of a fear of them but not because of them. No policy has happened yet. Many failing schools are being picked up as causes of labour policies by the right wing press with no evidence because idiots will believe the bullst.
There won't be a flood, I'm sure of that. There might be a very vocal few.
Why do parents sacrifice many of their earnings rather than supporting the state school system? Because they want advantage. When the advantage becomes more difficult to achieve (guess what you were always dependent on the opinion of others to get it) tough st. I don't enjoy the reality dawning but I think it was about time. I also think it won't be as bad as the seers are predicting but they've vested interests in saying it's doom.
More guff and trolling. Keyboard warriors of your ilk are tedious I give you that and no I dont read the telegraph, although the assumption makes you look like a dick. No considered response to my post on the evidence provided by the article (not that your opinion is required again, its been repeated ad nauseam on here for months), just your own prejudice as always. What happened to your previous position that this policy would get private school parents to somehow make their local comp better by forcing them into ‘the system’, that has gone a bit quiet eh, because that was hilarious, keep doubling down with your buzzwords, your chip is clear to see, its only you that seems to be oblivious, using this thread to repeatedly try and make yourself feel better about whatever your own small mindedness has got you so worked up about. You let the mask slip before when you posted a rant about your bosses being from privilege, be careful comrade. I look forward to the usual deflective reply which will get ignored because it adds no value to the topic just more grrr wealthy/privilege/elites etc etc. Maybe go play with the other trolls and leave the grownups to discuss matters.It's not an envy tax. That is privileged twit commentary. Envy of what? Ask yourself.
Now in the real world anyone taking their children out of private education now are not doing so because of labour policies. Maybe out of a fear of them but not because of them. No policy has happened yet. Many failing schools are being picked up as causes of labour policies by the right wing press with no evidence because idiots will believe the bulls
t.There won't be a flood, I'm sure of that. There might be a very vocal few.
Why do parents sacrifice many of their earnings rather than supporting the state school system? Because they want advantage. When the advantage becomes more difficult to achieve (guess what you were always dependent on the opinion of others to get it) tough s
t. I don't enjoy the reality dawning but I think it was about time. I also think it won't be as bad as the seers are predicting but they've vested interests in saying it's doom.NDA said:
I've heard the same in my area - some excellent schools are going to struggle to stay open.
State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
How? I think you're lying.State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
How are they going to struggle to stay open. No funding has been cut.
"It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money"
What would they be paying for if it wasn't cut?
Dwayne and chardonnay are not asking for your privilege and will do fine without it.
I think I can have fun with the railing. I may understand it but I think you have more fun with unearned privilege.
It's not going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. It's arguably a class issue. It's not an expensive one. Never will be.
I don't think any significant fall in waiting lists will be related to the 20% potential rise in fees to be honest. I suspect it's more likely to be related to the end of free money, rising concerns re employment security and mortgage costs. Plenty of people just about to start out on what is a huge commitment will have been in work meetings over the last 12 months about cutting head count, many have no real property equity and large mortgages due to having missed getting on the ladder before the big jump. Many have had a working life where haemorrhaging income on lifestyle was seen as somehow normal and many are still reliant on parental support.
Looking around at how the slightly younger people around me have been spending faster than they earn since graduating trying to match their senior colleagues and peers it strikes me as entirely plausible that the cost rises of the last couple of years are causing more than expected to drop out from the desire to be seen at a particular set of school gates?
Maybe very different outside of London but lots have been putting their children down on lists just because the Jones's have been.
Looking around at how the slightly younger people around me have been spending faster than they earn since graduating trying to match their senior colleagues and peers it strikes me as entirely plausible that the cost rises of the last couple of years are causing more than expected to drop out from the desire to be seen at a particular set of school gates?
Maybe very different outside of London but lots have been putting their children down on lists just because the Jones's have been.
M1AGM said:
More guff and trolling. Keyboard warriors of your ilk are tedious I give you that and no I dont read the telegraph, although the assumption makes you look like a dick. No considered response to my post on the evidence provided by the article (not that your opinion is required again, its been repeated ad nauseam on here for months), just your own prejudice as always. What happened to your previous position that this policy would get private school parents to somehow make their local comp better by forcing them into ‘the system’, that has gone a bit quiet eh, because that was hilarious, keep doubling down with your buzzwords, your chip is clear to see, its only you that seems to be oblivious, using this thread to repeatedly try and make yourself feel better about whatever your own small mindedness has got you so worked up about. You let the mask slip before when you posted a rant about your bosses being from privilege, be careful comrade. I look forward to the usual deflective reply which will get ignored because it adds no value to the topic just more grrr wealthy/privilege/elites etc etc. Maybe go play with the other trolls and leave the grownups to discuss matters.
Word salad but I'll pick out the healthy pieces and respond.I have no chip but I understand how it could look that way.
Did I say that? I think you're reading someone else. I think those that would ignore others for the defence of their own are understandable but not defendable. I realise you don't understand the difference, because you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Now I've just insulted you.
Justifiably.
But I'll respond to your stupid set of questions. You're defending privilege. I'm not. Good luck with that, especially when privileges are unearned which I suspect is the reason you get so vehement on this subject.
cheesejunkie said:
Word salad but I'll pick out the healthy pieces and respond.
I have no chip but I understand how it could look that way.
Did I say that? I think you're reading someone else. I think those that would ignore others for the defence of their own are understandable but not defendable. I realise you don't understand the difference, because you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Now I've just insulted you.
Justifiably.
But I'll respond to your stupid set of questions. You're defending privilege. I'm not. Good luck with that, especially when privileges are unearned which I suspect is the reason you get so vehement on this subject.
I am not sure I understand the privilege part - education has always been VAT free, now the likely incoming government want to apply VAT to certain forms of education but not all. I have no chip but I understand how it could look that way.
Did I say that? I think you're reading someone else. I think those that would ignore others for the defence of their own are understandable but not defendable. I realise you don't understand the difference, because you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Now I've just insulted you.
Justifiably.
But I'll respond to your stupid set of questions. You're defending privilege. I'm not. Good luck with that, especially when privileges are unearned which I suspect is the reason you get so vehement on this subject.
The one form of education that seems to lead to preferential treatment is university, so from a privilege point of view that should be the one to target as it perpetuates a form of elitism surely?
Zaichik said:
I am not sure I understand the privilege part - education has always been VAT free, now the likely incoming government want to apply VAT to certain forms of education but not all.
The one form of education that seems to lead to preferential treatment is university, so from a privilege point of view that should be the one to target as it perpetuates a form of elitism surely?
Education used to be free. A labour government made it costly at third level and a tory government supported that.The one form of education that seems to lead to preferential treatment is university, so from a privilege point of view that should be the one to target as it perpetuates a form of elitism surely?
I have reasons for thinking they're both wrong but they're outside my private education school argument. Vat on PE is not a game changer but it's long overdue given the realities of funding differences between private and public schools. You can choose who to blame, you can't claim there's a government supported difference. You can't defend VAT free for you and not for them.
cheesejunkie said:
Education used to be free. A labour government made it costly at third level and a tory government supported that.
I have reasons for thinking they're both wrong but they're outside my private education school argument. Vat on PE is not a game changer but it's long overdue given the realities of funding differences between private and public schools. You can choose who to blame, you can't claim there's a government supported difference. You can't defend VAT free for you and not for them.
I am not sure University education was ever 'free'. Someone was having to pay for it. I have reasons for thinking they're both wrong but they're outside my private education school argument. Vat on PE is not a game changer but it's long overdue given the realities of funding differences between private and public schools. You can choose who to blame, you can't claim there's a government supported difference. You can't defend VAT free for you and not for them.
I have no problem with state funding education at any level as I have no problem with private funded choices too. My issue is an apparent unfairness in application of taxation - make it fair/equitable or don't have it. In the case of education I find it hard to equate taxing education with fairness and once they start down a route of taxing something only the rich pay, eventually it will be all of us.
In all these discussions about potential increases in all forms of tax, no one anywhere is suggesting that we perhaps have too much government, too much public service and perhaps we should consider just how much as a nation we can really afford? At some point we will run out of rich people in this nation and we will need to look to other nations...
Zaichik said:
I am not sure University education was ever 'free'. Someone was having to pay for it.
I have no problem with state funding education at any level as I have no problem with private funded choices too. My issue is an apparent unfairness in application of taxation - make it fair/equitable or don't have it. In the case of education I find it hard to equate taxing education with fairness and once they start down a route of taxing something only the rich pay, eventually it will be all of us.
In all these discussions about potential increases in all forms of tax, no one anywhere is suggesting that we perhaps have too much government, too much public service and perhaps we should consider just how much as a nation we can really afford? At some point we will run out of rich people in this nation and we will need to look to other nations...
We have different definitions of fair. That's fine as long as you don't assume should accept yours.I have no problem with state funding education at any level as I have no problem with private funded choices too. My issue is an apparent unfairness in application of taxation - make it fair/equitable or don't have it. In the case of education I find it hard to equate taxing education with fairness and once they start down a route of taxing something only the rich pay, eventually it will be all of us.
In all these discussions about potential increases in all forms of tax, no one anywhere is suggesting that we perhaps have too much government, too much public service and perhaps we should consider just how much as a nation we can really afford? At some point we will run out of rich people in this nation and we will need to look to other nations...
I think you're full of it when suggesting taking something only the rich pay will eventually be spread to all of is. I think you're a disease.
In all these discussions now one is suggesting we have a rich elite that seeks to remove an elected responsible people who think that their wealth justifies their opinion when it's usually bulls
t. Can we afford governments in hock to wealth, I don't think so.cheesejunkie said:
We have different definitions of fair. That's fine as long as you don't assume should accept yours.
I think you're full of it when suggesting taking something only the rich pay will eventually be spread to all of is. I think you're a disease.
In all these discussions now one is suggesting we have a rich elite that seeks to remove an elected responsible people who think that their wealth justifies their opinion when it's usually bullst. Can we afford governments in hock to wealth, I don't think so.
Fair is always a personal view which is why phrases like 'paying their fair share' are pretty meaningless.I think you're full of it when suggesting taking something only the rich pay will eventually be spread to all of is. I think you're a disease.
In all these discussions now one is suggesting we have a rich elite that seeks to remove an elected responsible people who think that their wealth justifies their opinion when it's usually bulls
t. Can we afford governments in hock to wealth, I don't think so.In terms of being full of it suggesting that a tax only the rich will pay will eventually spread to all of us, perhaps you are right as I only have one example of this off the top of my head which is the higher rate income tax.
I am a bit surprised you think not wanting ever increased taxes is a disease. It would seem to me to be completely rational.
Boggles my mind that people live in the mindset of preserve my privilege, dodge tax, breed and indoctrinate them to be just like me.
I have paid millions of pounds in tax, hundreds of thousands annually, and my only concern is that it's being spent by the fking Tories and not by a political party that actually gives a st about egalitarianism.
I have paid millions of pounds in tax, hundreds of thousands annually, and my only concern is that it's being spent by the f
king Tories and not by a political party that actually gives a st about egalitarianism.NDA said:
I've heard the same in my area - some excellent schools are going to struggle to stay open.
State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
The irony being that the children who REALLY need to be provided with free breakfasts won’t benefit because (sadly) they’re the ones either not at school, or not at school in time to benefit. So the whole thing benefits kids who would have otherwise had breakfast at home i.e. all it’s doing is moving money from higher to lower earners, and doing nothing to prevent child hunger.State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
cheesejunkie said:
NDA said:
I've heard the same in my area - some excellent schools are going to struggle to stay open.
State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
How? I think you're lying.State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
How are they going to struggle to stay open. No funding has been cut.
"It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money"
What would they be paying for if it wasn't cut?
Dwayne and chardonnay are not asking for your privilege and will do fine without it.
I think I can have fun with the railing. I may understand it but I think you have more fun with unearned privilege.
It's not going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. It's arguably a class issue. It's not an expensive one. Never will be.
Surviving private schools will become more elite, taxpayers will be paying more and there will be larger class sizes within the state system. But, yeah, end privilege innit. Hilarious.
Zaichik said:
cheesejunkie said:
Word salad but I'll pick out the healthy pieces and respond.
I have no chip but I understand how it could look that way.
Did I say that? I think you're reading someone else. I think those that would ignore others for the defence of their own are understandable but not defendable. I realise you don't understand the difference, because you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Now I've just insulted you.
Justifiably.
But I'll respond to your stupid set of questions. You're defending privilege. I'm not. Good luck with that, especially when privileges are unearned which I suspect is the reason you get so vehement on this subject.
I am not sure I understand the privilege part - education has always been VAT free, now the likely incoming government want to apply VAT to certain forms of education but not all. I have no chip but I understand how it could look that way.
Did I say that? I think you're reading someone else. I think those that would ignore others for the defence of their own are understandable but not defendable. I realise you don't understand the difference, because you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Now I've just insulted you.
Justifiably.
But I'll respond to your stupid set of questions. You're defending privilege. I'm not. Good luck with that, especially when privileges are unearned which I suspect is the reason you get so vehement on this subject.
The one form of education that seems to lead to preferential treatment is university, so from a privilege point of view that should be the one to target as it perpetuates a form of elitism surely?
Cheers
NDA said:
cheesejunkie said:
NDA said:
I've heard the same in my area - some excellent schools are going to struggle to stay open.
State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
How? I think you're lying.State schools already have long waiting lists, so it is unclear where pupils will be forced to go.
But as long as Dwayne and Chardonay get their free breakfasts paid for by the toffs, that's the main thing.
It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money - more than it might raise.
How are they going to struggle to stay open. No funding has been cut.
"It's ultimately going to cost taxpayers an awful lot of money"
What would they be paying for if it wasn't cut?
Dwayne and chardonnay are not asking for your privilege and will do fine without it.
I think I can have fun with the railing. I may understand it but I think you have more fun with unearned privilege.
It's not going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. It's arguably a class issue. It's not an expensive one. Never will be.
Surviving private schools will become more elite, taxpayers will be paying more and there will be larger class sizes within the state system. But, yeah, end privilege innit. Hilarious.
The current mood of the country is to protect feelings of various groups and generate respect for them. Except when it comes to 'rich kids' who are 'privileged' it seems. There is a very real situation on the horizon that is going to hurt people and I mean the kids that leave, not the ones that can afford to stay.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff