Sir Ralph

For clarity I wasn’t proposing a tax break. I was just saying that, if anything, there should be a tax break rather than VAT payable.

I know that socialism rejects anyone with any money, even if not wealthy, hence this mentality. The politics of envy. Socialism is a race to the bottom. Prefer other people not access good education even if it reduces the quality of education generally and puts more pressure on state schools. It is a good thing to want to work hard to be able to provide your children with the best opportunities. Why is it wrong to have the option of a better eduction? In our local private school, there are no less bursaries because of the VAT increase so it’s actually increasing inequality in this respect. Also your suggestion that having parents of rich children in school will help the state schools. I understand the concept but the reality is that most people with more money live in certain areas where the state schools and grammar schools are better. Kids leave private schools tend to have a better education and are likely to fill the spaces in the better schools in that area (eg grammar schools). This reduces the spaces for those pupils with less wealthy parents and pushes everyone down the pyramid. I certainly don’t think that most kids leaving private schools will be attending under performing local comps.

Its an unjustified policy. How can you tax someone for a school place, they dont take the school place and decide to pay out of their own pocket for another school place, and you tax them more for that extra place. If anything you should get a tax rebate if you pay for a private school place. Its a dumbass politically driven tax which keeps the left happy because they get to raise more tax by taking more money off what they perceive to be wealthy people, even though a reasonable proportion arent.

It’s just lucky that we have you guys to make sure there is some sanity…phew. Well done, great work.

So you wouldn’t pay more. By the logic applied by the lefties on here that’s selfish.

You're spot on. Great post

😆

Thats pedantic.

Not wanting to pay tax doesnt make you selfish! If there was a minimum tax level and a voluntarily option to pay more tax, then would the lefties on here pay more tax for the good of the state? I assume you think the Tube strikers are selfish?

I was hoping to engage Whelk on this as he made the point. The unusual thing is that I've never met a wealthy person who wants to pay more tax or agrees with paying VAT on private schools. Yet on this forum there seem to be quite a few of them....all very strange.

As a matter of principle, why should private schools be subject to VAT? Genuine question.

No I don’t - I made it all up. I thought that saying I knew about public sector inefficiency would make me cool.

Does he do the insurance ads?

You must be quite old, whos that?😉

Your opinion means a lot to me so its a sad day for me.

Ahhhh, the politics of envy. Terrible look.

I'm not going to start talking about roles and departments. Like I said, you can take my experience for what it is or dont. Its fine. The conversation about class is a different issue now - I think we started at public spending and debt. In summary, it doesnt matter if your lower or upper class origins. We all start of with different positions. If you achieve through hard graft, regardless of social status origin, you deserve the benefits that come your way.

Well I disagree with that - most people I know who have done well have come from lower class backgrounds and grafted, taken risks and built businesses from scratch. They deserve everything they get. Your experience is obviously different to mine.

I'm not going to tell you this for obvious reasons - if you dont think there are inefficiencies in the public sector then fine, dont believe it.

I agree its about your priorities. Your view on people on the left being nice and kind and people on the right being selfish isnt correct though. Often people take a position because it is to their advantage - that is human nature. If I was a net taker from the state (paid for by the taxpayer) or employed by the state I would probably more likely vote to the left, as the outcome would be better for me. Please dont pretend otherwise. I also want my children and peers to grow up in an aspirational country where you can be successful without being unreasonably taxed for it - where your work reflects your reward.

You asked me to provide examples. In general terms the issues are too many people employed in roles created unnecessarily, which create additional unnecessary processes which essentially delay and prevent business growth. In many cases instead of helping growth it is hindered by these people. I know this is not all parts of the public sector but the area I work in there are these issues and similar issues in other industries from people I know. In large companies they live or die by their financial success. Whilst inefficiencies occur, they will often be rooted out at some point due to the drive to create financial success, otherwise the company ultimately dies. With the NHS for example and some other public bodies, it feels like more and more taxpayer money will be thrown at it without addressing root causes and the inefficiencies, often because Government doesnt actually have a scobby of how to address the issues (whilst pretending they do) and politically its too sensitive to make cuts. The solution then it not to just tax, in my opinion.

I'm aware that economics is complicated. I dont think there are many anomalies and I responded to the examples you gave with specific explanations as to why they werent anomalies and provided correlations between public spending and debt. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I dont think most people would mind being taxed more if they were happy with the return in terms of improved services and that there was a priority to reduce inefficiencies where they exist. Conversations about 30% corporation tax and the long term sustainability of the NHS in its current function are entering into new grounds and that depends on an individuals priorities, of which we all have different ones.

You can pick out anomalies from the trend but most of them have an explanation (Japan's debt is high because of Government intervention in the 90s regardless of their public spending now being low - its not high because of general public spending, Finland's and Austria's debt is historically low but is now increasing very rapidly with public spending being one of the reasons, showing a direct link https://yle.fi/a/74-20174454 https://www.vol.at/shocking-figures-government-spending-causes-deficit-to-rise-to-4-7-of-gdp/9310835). Therefore both Finland and Austria are likely to have to consider reducing public spending. Whilst there are some countries where high tax and high public spending works with a lower debt (Scandinavia is always mentioned by any high tax proponent because they are lacking other examples) , in the majority of cases it doesnt. The below shows budget deficits in European countries in 2024. Finland, France, Austria, Belgium and Italy are 5 of the top 8 countries with the biggest deficit (contributing to increased debt) and are the top 5 public spenders. This shows another clear correlation.

Public Spending Ratio EU Member States in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy have top 5 highest public spending) Government Debt in relation to GDP in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy are also top 4). One of the reasons Greek debt is so high because of excessive public spending before the 2008 crisis.

Well I agree - the points arent really relevant to each other though and I didnt make any link. The previous discussion was why was the Euro Zone inflation lower than ours and whether the differential between us and the Euro Zone was due to government policy. The two topics are quite separate. France's debt relates to structural economic issues, not inflation over the past year. We still want policies that lower our own inflation though so that point remains.