So what happens if Labour win?

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

Reads like the proverbial letter to Santa from a kid and totally ignores the human reaction to getting taxed more. MRS gave one example and there are plenty more. I will be involved in stopping a fair bit of that happening if they did get in and I fancy my chances

Luckily its not likely to happen.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Reads like the proverbial letter to Santa from a kid and totally ignores the human reaction to getting taxed more. MRS gave one example and there are plenty more. I will be involved in stopping a fair bit of that happening if they did get in and I fancy my chances

Luckily its not likely to happen.

I love the £10bn from cracking down on a voidance and loopholes. Now why would all previous chancellors have tried also sorts of ways of raising peanuts when that giant sack of money was just sat there?

Raising money is not just about upping % rates.

If you want to raise more money from the rich then cutting down on pension allowances would raise far more. Or cut more allowances for buy to let investors.

Then again when you know this you realise that our potential leaders are grandstanding rather than trying to raise money.

kajjal

meanredspider wrote:

@ben@31 - let's just take one of those "apples" on your money tree: vat on private school fees. Do you have the details of how that's broken down to reach the £1.6bn?

I can tell you that there will be several outcomes to this policy:
1. A lot of parents who are just about affording to pay for kids in private schools will no longer be able to.
2. The outcome of this will be less kids in private schools leading to
3. More kids in the state sector
4. Less people employed in the private sector
5. Schools that currently give able-but-less-well-off kids bursaries will no longer feel the moral need to do so.
6. The more affluent and foreign parents will send their kids to schools in other countries.

Now, personally, despite having had a private secondary education myself, I'm not a fan of private education. My wife works in a state school and my kids were educated in a state school. I believe in it.

But, as a fund-raising measure, I think the policy is fraught with risks and ultimately will make private education the reserve of the extremely well-off whilst not raising anything like the amount of money I'm guessing is in that £1.6bn number and destroying employment for people whilst pressurising the state sector.

The same goes for many of those other "apples". When I was wee, I used to think that I could connect the dynamo on my bike to an electric motor and I'd get endless power. The idea that these policies will raise that money is the economic equivalent.

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

meanredspider

Kajjal wrote:

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

I'm afraid that's just misinformed borlicks. I'm sure that's what you'd like to think but the reality is very different.

cougie

meanredspider wrote:

@ben@31 - let's just take one of those "apples" on your money tree: vat on private school fees. Do you have the details of how that's broken down to reach the £1.6bn?

I can tell you that there will be several outcomes to this policy:
1. A lot of parents who are just about affording to pay for kids in private schools will no longer be able to.
2. The outcome of this will be less kids in private schools leading to
3. More kids in the state sector
4. Less people employed in the private sector
5. Schools that currently give able-but-less-well-off kids bursaries will no longer feel the moral need to do so.
6. The more affluent and foreign parents will send their kids to schools in other countries.

Now, personally, despite having had a private secondary education myself, I'm not a fan of private education. My wife works in a state school and my kids were educated in a state school. I believe in it.

But, as a fund-raising measure, I think the policy is fraught with risks and ultimately will make private education the reserve of the extremely well-off whilst not raising anything like the amount of money I'm guessing is in that £1.6bn number and destroying employment for people whilst pressurising the state sector.

The same goes for many of those other "apples". When I was wee, I used to think that I could connect the dynamo on my bike to an electric motor and I'd get endless power. The idea that these policies will raise that money is the economic equivalent.

Only 7% of children are in private schools.
If you were to say that with a tax on fees and say 20% of people couldn't afford to send them then it's only a percentage increase to the state school. That's if 20% couldn't do it and didnt choose to save on a new range rover or something as a cost cutting.

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

slowmart

Can we all come and live in cougie land?

It sounds marvellous , simplistic, where social equality reins and there is no poverty and everyone lives in harmony without weapons or a police force.

kajjal

meanredspider wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

I'm afraid that's just misinformed borlicks. I'm sure that's what you'd like to think but the reality is very different.

I understand it blows all your arguments wide open but average school fees are £15,000 a year in the UK. If you have two children that means £30,000 a year purely on school fees which ignores any other costs. A £30,000 a year net income is much higher than most people in this country, roughly £40,000 gross.

My point is not that public schooling is wrong or shouldn't exist just it should be taxed like any other luxury good / service.

kajjal

cougie wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

@ben@31 - let's just take one of those "apples" on your money tree: vat on private school fees. Do you have the details of how that's broken down to reach the £1.6bn?

I can tell you that there will be several outcomes to this policy:
1. A lot of parents who are just about affording to pay for kids in private schools will no longer be able to.
2. The outcome of this will be less kids in private schools leading to
3. More kids in the state sector
4. Less people employed in the private sector
5. Schools that currently give able-but-less-well-off kids bursaries will no longer feel the moral need to do so.
6. The more affluent and foreign parents will send their kids to schools in other countries.

Now, personally, despite having had a private secondary education myself, I'm not a fan of private education. My wife works in a state school and my kids were educated in a state school. I believe in it.

But, as a fund-raising measure, I think the policy is fraught with risks and ultimately will make private education the reserve of the extremely well-off whilst not raising anything like the amount of money I'm guessing is in that £1.6bn number and destroying employment for people whilst pressurising the state sector.

The same goes for many of those other "apples". When I was wee, I used to think that I could connect the dynamo on my bike to an electric motor and I'd get endless power. The idea that these policies will raise that money is the economic equivalent.

Only 7% of children are in private schools.
If you were to say that with a tax on fees and say 20% of people couldn't afford to send them then it's only a percentage increase to the state school. That's if 20% couldn't do it and didnt choose to save on a new range rover or something as a cost cutting.

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

Another stat and then I am off out on the bike offroad for a few hours

Currently 93% of state schools are having to make cuts :shock:

meanredspider

cougie wrote:

Only 7% of children are in private schools.
If you were to say that with a tax on fees and say 20% of people couldn't afford to send them then it's only a percentage increase to the state school. That's if 20% couldn't do it and didnt choose to save on a new range rover or something as a cost cutting.

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

So let's say, for round numbers, that of that 7%, 1 of those % move from private to state education. And, for simplicity of numbers, it has a direct impact on state education costs. So, based upon £40bn being spent on schools, there's a 0.4bn increase in direct schools costs.

There will also be a knock-on effect on property prices around the good state schools, forcing out less-wealthy students whose parents can't afford the properties that those people, now released from needing to pay young Johnnie's school fees, can afford.

And, again, I think, in your envy, you totally misjudge what people do to stretch themselves to pay for their kids to go to private schools. Both sets of my brothers' kids are privately educated so I totally understand what it takes. If you drove past my UK-based brother's house, you wouldn't look twice. He has a company Discovery and a Polo. My kids have done better than his and mine were state educated.

meanredspider

Kajjal wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

I'm afraid that's just misinformed borlicks. I'm sure that's what you'd like to think but the reality is very different.

I understand it blows all your arguments wide open but average school fees are £15,000 a year in the UK. If you have two children that means £30,000 a year purely on school fees which ignores any other costs. A £30,000 a year net income is much higher than most people in this country, roughly £40,000 gross.

My point is not that public schooling is wrong or shouldn't exist just it should be taxed like any other luxury good / service.

How on earth does it blow all my arguments? £30k is £30k* - it's a lot of money but people will scrimp and save to pay it. Increase it and lots of people won't be able to afford it. If you've understand anything I've said, you'll see that it's not a very clever revenue-raising policy whatever you think about private education. And, because it doesn't appear that you've read what I've written, I don't (that's DON'T) believe in private schooling.

BTW - that's just day fees. Boarding fees are twice that. Mind you, boarding fees are far more likely to be foreigners. Adding 15% to that cost might drive them away to other countries or the increasing number of private schools U.K. schools are setting up abroad.

shortfall

cougie wrote:

[3

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

.........with Diane Abbott's son.

meanredspider

Kajjal wrote:

cougie wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

@ben@31 - let's just take one of those "apples" on your money tree: vat on private school fees. Do you have the details of how that's broken down to reach the £1.6bn?

I can tell you that there will be several outcomes to this policy:
1. A lot of parents who are just about affording to pay for kids in private schools will no longer be able to.
2. The outcome of this will be less kids in private schools leading to
3. More kids in the state sector
4. Less people employed in the private sector
5. Schools that currently give able-but-less-well-off kids bursaries will no longer feel the moral need to do so.
6. The more affluent and foreign parents will send their kids to schools in other countries.

Now, personally, despite having had a private secondary education myself, I'm not a fan of private education. My wife works in a state school and my kids were educated in a state school. I believe in it.

But, as a fund-raising measure, I think the policy is fraught with risks and ultimately will make private education the reserve of the extremely well-off whilst not raising anything like the amount of money I'm guessing is in that £1.6bn number and destroying employment for people whilst pressurising the state sector.

The same goes for many of those other "apples". When I was wee, I used to think that I could connect the dynamo on my bike to an electric motor and I'd get endless power. The idea that these policies will raise that money is the economic equivalent.

Only 7% of children are in private schools.
If you were to say that with a tax on fees and say 20% of people couldn't afford to send them then it's only a percentage increase to the state school. That's if 20% couldn't do it and didnt choose to save on a new range rover or something as a cost cutting.

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

Another stat and then I am off out on the bike offroad for a few hours

Currently 93% of state schools are having to make cuts :shock:

Again, had you bothered to read what I wrote, my wife is a teacher in a state school :roll:

cougie

meanredspider wrote:

cougie wrote:

Only 7% of children are in private schools.
If you were to say that with a tax on fees and say 20% of people couldn't afford to send them then it's only a percentage increase to the state school. That's if 20% couldn't do it and didnt choose to save on a new range rover or something as a cost cutting.

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

So let's say, for round numbers, that of that 7%, 1 of those % move from private to state education. And, for simplicity of numbers, it has a direct impact on state education costs. So, based upon £40bn being spent on schools, there's a 0.4bn increase in direct schools costs.

There will also be a knock-on effect on property prices around the good state schools, forcing out less-wealthy students whose parents can't afford the properties that those people, now released from needing to pay young Johnnie's school fees, can afford.

And, again, I think, in your envy, you totally misjudge what people do to stretch themselves to pay for their kids to go to private schools. Both sets of my brothers' kids are privately educated so I totally understand what it takes. If you drove past my UK-based brother's house, you wouldn't look twice. He has a company Discovery and a Polo. My kids have done better than his and mine were state educated.

Who said I was envious ? And sounds like your brother would have been better saving his cash if the state schools are better.
Labour plans would be doing both him and your wife a favour.

cougie

Slowmart wrote:

Can we all come and live in cougie land?

It sounds marvellous , simplistic, where social equality reins and there is no poverty and everyone lives in harmony without weapons or a police force.

When did I even mention the police ? I spent a good while chatting with armed police in Manchester this week. They've been bussed over from Liverpool to reassure the public. So if you were a bomber - you'd have easy pickings in the less protected areas. Their shifts are unsustainable - you can cope for emergencies but not longer term. Thanks Theresa for cutting numbers. Working splendidly

meanredspider

cougie wrote:

Who said I was envious ? And sounds like your brother would have been better saving his cash if the state schools are better.
Labour plans would be doing both him and your wife a favour.

Your Range Rover comment came across as envy....

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed. My point, yet again, is that I'm not a fan of private schools but this is a crap revenue-raising policy. I'd like to see workings and assumptions of this £1.6bn contribution.

Stevo_666

meanredspider wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

I'm afraid that's just misinformed borlicks. I'm sure that's what you'd like to think but the reality is very different.

+1

That is A Grade leftiebollox. The people I know who send their kids private make big sacrifices to do so. And they also pay their taxes to fund the state education sector - how selfish of them.

slowmart

cougie wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Can we all come and live in cougie land?

It sounds marvellous , simplistic, where social equality reins and there is no poverty and everyone lives in harmony without weapons or a police force.

When did I even mention the police ? I spent a good while chatting with armed police in Manchester this week. They've been bussed over from Liverpool to reassure the public. So if you were a bomber - you'd have easy pickings in the less protected areas. Their shifts are unsustainable - you can cope for emergencies but not longer term. Thanks Theresa for cutting numbers. Working splendidly

your view of life events for the last thirty years is simplistic and innocent with no understanding of the triggers or context of the outcomes you've mentioned.

From your comments you've got it all figured out. Tax the rich, remove the boot of the capitalist banker from the working man and everyone will live in harmony......except for one thing, socialism doesn't work, look at the events of the last thirty years and its irrefutable. That's not saying capitalism is any better and if you extend that view you could sustain a good argument that democracy is over rated and fundamentally flawed given big data and targeted news, fake or otherwise to sway political influence.

The situation is best summed up with the two realistic choices we have as PM. Jezza and May, both from the bottom drawer in ability, intelligence and capability.

Stevo_666

Shortfall wrote:

cougie wrote:

[3

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

.........with Diane Abbott's son.

Ah, the rich vein of leftie hypocrisy

Let's not forget Chakrabati's kids in private school. Or the point that Corbyn's kids went to a selective school....

meanredspider

I've said it before that I'd love to see a more equitable society but it's one based upon more collective responsibility rather than "the politics of envy" and of expectation.

Of the various countries out there, I see the Nordics have got closest to what I believe in. It may be no surprise that, despite not having loads of hot weather, they are some of the generally happiest people in the world (in spite of the high suicide rate). Corbyn's "tax the rich until the pips squeak" is not the way to get there

ben@31

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

cougie wrote:

[3

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

.........with Diane Abbott's son.

Ah, the rich vein of leftie hypocrisy

Let's not forget Chakrabati's kids in private school. Or the point that Corbyn's kids went to a selective school....

Hypocrisy is hardly exclusive to the Left; cast your mind back to all the traditional family values nonsense in which the Conservatives periodically get tangled.

So because half a dozen prominent lefties send their children to fee-paying or selective schools, it's therefore absolutely fine to gradually reduce state school funding? Seems a bit of a thin argument to me.

kajjal

meanredspider wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

I'm afraid that's just misinformed borlicks. I'm sure that's what you'd like to think but the reality is very different.

I understand it blows all your arguments wide open but average school fees are £15,000 a year in the UK. If you have two children that means £30,000 a year purely on school fees which ignores any other costs. A £30,000 a year net income is much higher than most people in this country, roughly £40,000 gross.

My point is not that public schooling is wrong or shouldn't exist just it should be taxed like any other luxury good / service.

How on earth does it blow all my arguments? £30k is £30k* - it's a lot of money but people will scrimp and save to pay it. Increase it and lots of people won't be able to afford it. If you've understand anything I've said, you'll see that it's not a very clever revenue-raising policy whatever you think about private education. And, because it doesn't appear that you've read what I've written, I don't (that's DON'T) believe in private schooling.

BTW - that's just day fees. Boarding fees are twice that. Mind you, boarding fees are far more likely to be foreigners. Adding 15% to that cost might drive them away to other countries or the increasing number of private schools U.K. schools are setting up abroad.

Apologies I misunderstood your post

meanredspider

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.

OK - this is the last response because you've swallowed the red book completely..

I don't read the papers. Any papers. I do listen to R4 pretty much exclusively - each side will say that the BBC is leaning towards the other side. That tells me it's not perfect but it's pretty balanced.

What I do, though, is use my own brain to think about the onward consequences of policies. My wife is a teacher, my kids were all state-educated (comprehensive, too) and my daughter is being treated for leukaemia in an NHS hospital. Give me some credit for having the best interests of state education and the NHS at heart. But, no, Corbyn has all the answers: we'll screw the super-rich to pay for it all. Sounds great, doesn't it? Just like my dynamo powrring the motor on my bike. Except the super-rich will just wave the UK goodbye, taking their businesses and their money with them (just like last time) and then who will pay?

ben@31

Sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Except the super-rich will just wave the UK goodbye, taking their businesses and their money with them

1. Are their bank accounts in the UK ?
2. I really don't believe they will physically emigrate from the UK or that Amazon and Starbucks will stop selling to the 60000000 customers here.

cougie

MRS. They're talking about a corporation tax of 26%. In 2010 it was 28%. Did everyone leave then ? It's been massively higher in years before as well.

You've seen the NHS. There's not going to be one in another term of Tories. It's going to be underfunded until it becomes unworkable and then who rides to the rescue ? Private companies. Who can then make money off of it. No wonder there's Millions of pounds of donations coming into their party. If you're in healthcare the big payoff is just round the corner.

bendertherobot

Anyone absorbed the Naylor report yet?

I'm about half way through....

surrey_commuter

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

Oh yes they can. The Brexit inspired economic slowdown has extended austerity out another five years at least. Then imagine if we have a Brexit inspired recession - just hope they have their comfort blanket of sovereignty to cling to.

Anyway look at it another way - this is what the UK economy looks like when it is not being powered ahead by financial services. So maybe all those public sector workers should stop and give thanks to the circa £60bn of tax those wonderful chaps contribute each year.

surrey_commuter

ben@31 wrote:

Sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Except the super-rich will just wave the UK goodbye, taking their businesses and their money with them

1. Are their bank accounts in the UK ?
2. I really don't believe they will physically emigrate from the UK or that Amazon and Starbucks will stop selling to the 60000000 customers here.

Think of it as a metaphor. If you check stats for total taxation as a % of GDP it varies very little. This is because if you raise tax rates it becomes more worthwhile people investing time and money in avoiding paying. Think of you paying your plumber cash to avoid 20% VAT. If it was 5% you would pay it and have a receipt.

If there were easy tax receipts to grab somebody (Gordon Brown) would have grabbed them. The current total tax take is pretty much a fixed sum so you have to grow the economy and/or change your spending priorities. Unfortunately people who have stuff removed squeal ten time louder than the ingrates who get a cash boost.

kingstonian

cougie wrote:

MRS. They're talking about a corporation tax of 26%. In 2010 it was 28%. Did everyone leave then ? It's been massively higher in years before as well.

You've seen the NHS. There's not going to be one in another term of Tories. It's going to be underfunded until it becomes unworkable and then who rides to the rescue ? Private companies. Who can then make money off of it. No wonder there's Millions of pounds of donations coming into their party. If you're in healthcare the big payoff is just round the corner.

It was Labour that brought private companies into the NHS.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

cougie wrote:

[3

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

.........with Diane Abbott's son.

Ah, the rich vein of leftie hypocrisy

Let's not forget Chakrabati's kids in private school. Or the point that Corbyn's kids went to a selective school....

Hypocrisy is hardly exclusive to the Left; cast your mind back to all the traditional family values nonsense in which the Conservatives periodically get tangled.

So because half a dozen prominent lefties send their children to fee-paying or selective schools, it's therefore absolutely fine to gradually reduce state school funding? Seems a bit of a thin argument to me.

I only mentioned Abbott because another poster suggested that the Tories undefund education because their kids go to private schools. So she is a massive hypocrite and it's worth reminding people frequently of the fact. Oh and she's a sh1t shadow minister. Lots of Tories are hypocrites and sh1t ministers too of course, but Abbott scores off the scale on both counts.