The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[whelk]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right but if someone takes an issue with a policy - friends I have for example who sacrificed a lot to send their children to private school who have really found things difficult with the sudden Vat rise -that's not really something to mock or suggest they aren't deserving of some empathy. Yes their initial position could be viewed as privileged but it doesn't mean they don't have real world concerns like anyone else. Thays just one example by the way , it's the same for things like farmers with some genuinely fretting about how they will continue to operate their farm without packing it in.

I am not by any means saying I am some anthropological good guy. Everyone’s situation can deserve sympathy on an individual basis. Private schools should not be exempt from VAT and I was largely privately educated and my dad made sacrifices to send me. Everything should get to an equilibrium and I am fully aware the wealthy have the lobbying power and control the narrative for the deferential. So much of it is bs and that isn’t from the ‘politics of envy’

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

I am not by any means saying I am some anthropological good guy. Everyone’s situation can deserve sympathy on an individual basis. Private schools should not be exempt from VAT and I was largely privately educated and my dad made sacrifices to send me. Everything should get to an equilibrium and I am fully aware the wealthy have the lobbying power and control the narrative for the deferential. So much of it is bs and that isn’t from the ‘politics of envy’

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

Edited September 9 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

Because it's a luxury to be able to send your kids to private school. Why shouldn't they be?

Edited September 9 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

48 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

Yeah, thought not 👍

You do have history for not being able to back yourself in your tenure on here.

Edited September 9 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Because it's a luxury to be able to send your kids to private school. Why shouldn't they be?

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.

Edited September 9 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

I think the problem is that your people are made up. Gotta have pretty low self-esteem for your made-up friends to be cunts...

Edited September 9 by Farmer Saint

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

Alas many wealthy people are selfish. Not all though, fortunately. 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, egg said:

Alas many wealthy people are selfish. Not all though, fortunately. 

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?

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

You don’t seem to grasp it. It isn’t a want. VAT on private schools is more ideological and there is no reason for them to be exempt. 
And weird that every wealthy person you speak to talks about private education and their view on VAT. Many still will use state education. Anyway that’s me for the day - not in the Uk and shouldn’t be distracted with largely tedious debate

[Sir Ralph]

 

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

You don’t seem to grasp it. It isn’t a want. VAT on private schools is more ideological and there is no reason for them to be exempt. 
And weird that every wealthy person you speak to talks about private education and their view on VAT. Many still will use state education. Anyway that’s me for the day - not in the Uk and shouldn’t be distracted with largely tedious debate

Thats pedantic.

Edited September 9 by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I have friends who are incredibly wealthy. One is almost certainly worth over £100 million and someone I see probably every other week so a very good mate.  I also have a fair few friends who probably view me as the wealthy one.  So no dislike of people with wealth. however I loathe the greed of some wealthy, not generally the people i associate with,  who should have more humility and reflect with a ‘There by the grace of God go I’ approach rather than the selfish ‘it’s all mine’ outlook.

Similar, maybe not £100m but quite a few friends from university days who are in the tens of millions worth and more than the likes of Rupert Lowe (but way better human beings).

It buys you out of some of life’s everyday stresses but does make them happy? Only if they’ve got the same balancing factors that create a happy environment/family/friends and that is very rarely ‘things’ and the expensive holidays and cars wear off. Most of them don’t flaunt it either.

One of them has gone through a very expensive divorce where the lawyers have pocketed a sum that would buy you a 5 bed house even up here. His wife has lied through her teeth from spite and hence he only sees his kids on a very limited basis until their court case has its next hearing. So he’s no happier or better off than than a bloke using Fathers for Justice who grits the roads for a living. 

[Weston Super Saint]

36 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yeah, thought not 👍

You do have history for not being able to back yourself in your tenure on here.

#still_obsessed

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

#still_obsessed

😆

 

 

Edited September 9 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Similar, maybe not £100m but quite a few friends from university days who are in the tens of millions worth and more than the likes of Rupert Lowe (but way better human beings).

It buys you out of some of life’s everyday stresses but does make them happy? Only if they’ve got the same balancing factors that create a happy environment/family/friends and that is very rarely ‘things’ and the expensive holidays and cars wear off. Most of them don’t flaunt it either.

One of them has gone through a very expensive divorce where the lawyers have pocketed a sum that would buy you a 5 bed house even up here. His wife has lied through her teeth from spite and hence he only sees his kids on a very limited basis until their court case has its next hearing. So he’s no happier or better off than than a bloke using Fathers for Justice who grits the roads for a living. 

You're spot on. Great post

Edited September 9 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

26 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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?

That's a daft hypothetical.

I don't vote with my bank balance in mind, and I'm comfortable that my vote is always in favour of a taxing party. If I voted for a party with the primary intention of keeping more cash in my pocket, regardless of the impact on society (less necessary spending for example), then my outlook is selfish (and greedy). I get that you don't see that, and that's because are politics and outlooks are at opposite poles. 

I'm not getting into a strike debate. CBA. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Nobody wants to pay more tax, some people just pretend they do. 
 

It’s actually pretty easy to pay more, amazing how little is collected from so many willing to do so…

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a daft hypothetical.

I don't vote with my bank balance in mind, and I'm comfortable that my vote is always in favour of a taxing party. If I voted for a party with the primary intention of keeping more cash in my pocket, regardless of the impact on society (less necessary spending for example), then my outlook is selfish (and greedy). I get that you don't see that, and that's because are politics and outlooks are at opposite poles. 

I'm not getting into a strike debate. CBA. 

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

[egg]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Nobody wants to pay more tax, some people just pretend they do. 
 

It’s actually pretty easy to pay more, amazing how little is collected from so many willing to do so…

Nobody "wants" to, or has said that they do. Rather, some people accept that paying less has a knock on impact that they're not comfortable with, and that paying more should achieve the opposite. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

You're making less sense as the day goes on mate. 

[Farmer Saint]

Exactly, I voted Labour at the last election fully expecting to pay more tax (even after being told no tax rises - I thought they were lying). I expected top rate of tax back up to 50%, and other associated wealth taxes. Shame they've got no balls.

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

You're making less sense as the day goes on mate. 

He's all over the place all the time, don't worry.

[trousers]

26 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Exactly, I voted Labour at the last election fully expecting to pay more tax (even after being told no tax rises - I thought they were lying). I expected top rate of tax back up to 50%, and other associated wealth taxes. Shame they've got no balls.

Nothing stopping you paying additional tax to the treasury any time you like... Don't need to wait for a government to make you do it...

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Nothing stopping you paying additional tax to the treasury any time you like... Don't need to wait for a government to make you do it...

But it won't make a difference - the point is I'm happy to pay if the burden is shared and a difference is made. 

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it won't make a difference

If every like minded person paid extra it would, wouldn't it?

[egg]

How have we gone from people voting in the knowledge that their tax bill won't go down (and will probably go up) to the ridiculous idea of popping an unsolicited cheque in the post to HMRC?! For feck sake. 

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, trousers said:

If every like minded person paid extra it would, wouldn't it?

Yeah, as would just putting up taxes? Would it only be people who are happy to pay more taxes? I am happy to pay more taxes if everyone else pays those extra taxes. Is that clearer?

Edited Tuesday at 18:22 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

How have we gone from people voting in the knowledge that their tax bill won't go down (and will probably go up) to the ridiculous idea of popping an unsolicited cheque in the post to HMRC?! For feck sake. 

Fucking mental place this.

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Fucking mental place this.

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

Edited Tuesday at 18:26 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

This guy eh..? 😂😂😂

[whelk]

3 hours ago, egg said:

How have we gone from people voting in the knowledge that their tax bill won't go down (and will probably go up) to the ridiculous idea of popping an unsolicited cheque in the post to HMRC?! For feck sake. 

Yeah, usual fucking morons who seem to think it’s some sort of gotcha. Can’t seem to comprehend we want lots of people to pay more tax you so the treasury gets extra billions that can actually make a difference to services/society, not we want to send in our own personal cheques for ideological reasons, so why, don’t we?Honestly, only on Saintsweb do I come across such stupid people that need to have the most simplest (you’d think) of rationales explained. And they get so sensitive when they are referred to what they are, thick cunts.

[AlexLaw76]

You have to admire Stamer’s public commitment to those who are obviously going to resign 

remember,  this lot are the grown ups in the room.

Edited Wednesday at 16:25 by AlexLaw76

[iansums]

Has the change of policy on private school VAT exception resulted in increased tax revenue?

[Weston Super Saint]

50 minutes ago, iansums said:

Has the change of policy on private school VAT exception resulted in increased tax revenue?

Yes.

We're saved.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

Has the change of policy on private school VAT exception resulted in increased tax revenue?

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.

Edited Wednesday at 20:41 by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

We know why the policy was introduced and it wasn't to make money. My friend is a headteacher in a private school in London. He says the parents of the wealthy students didn't bat an eyelid as it makes no difference to them. It's those who sacrifice a lot and scrimp and save to send their children there that have had to drop out. 

[whelk]

5 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

even though a reasonable proportion arent

lol - want to quote some figures?

[whelk]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's those who sacrifice a lot and scrimp and save to send their children there that have had to drop out

Imagine having to use the state system like so many others. Laughable how people want to defend this. Eton is not a charity. 

[trousers]

3 hours ago, whelk said:

lol - want to quote some figures?

Our daughter went to a local private school and my son to the local comprehensive. The private school just happened to be my daughter's preference, not because it was a private school per se (I would say both schools were on a par in terms of quality of teaching, so we weren't doing it to gain some kind of advantage). Whilst we had a relatively decent income I wouldn't describe us as "wealthy" or "rich". We certainly had to make compromises to be able to afford it, and we just about managed it. Anecdotally, having got to know the circumstances of most of the parents in her year during the 5 years she was there, I would say under 20% of the parents could be classed as wealthy / rich (I guess that depends on your definition). Obviously that's a relatively small sample, so might be an outlier admittedly, but who's to say that demographic wasn't mirrored at other private schools across the country? But do continue to scoff and sneer at others' points of view if it makes you feel intellectually superior though...

Edited Thursday at 05:40 by trousers

[whelk]

44 minutes ago, trousers said:

Our daughter went to a local private school and my son to the local comprehensive. The private school just happened to be my daughter's preference, not because it was a private school per se (I would say both schools were on a par in terms of quality of teaching, so we weren't doing it to gain some kind of advantage). Whilst we had a relatively decent income I wouldn't describe us as "wealthy" or "rich". We certainly had to make compromises to be able to afford it, and we just about managed it. Anecdotally, having got to know the circumstances of most of the parents in her year during the 5 years she was there, I would say under 20% of the parents could be classed as wealthy / rich (I guess that depends on your definition). Obviously that's a relatively small sample, so might be an outlier admittedly, but who's to say that demographic wasn't mirrored at other private schools across the country? But do continue to scoff and sneer at others' points of view if it makes you feel intellectually superior though...

The vast majority of parents cannot afford private education for their children - assume you don’t dispute that?

Why should a subsidy, which is what it is a VAT exemption is, be in place for those that are in a privileged position to chose?  

State education needs to improve and that is more likely the more rich kids, and influential parents are involved in it. Schools were actually in a relatively decent state under Blair, largely due to increase in funding. 

There will be individual stories that can make any tax seem unfair but taxes need to be collected somehow. 

Haven’t seen the stats on all the kids that were doing everyone a favour by opting out of using state resources, that now due to 20% price hike are flooding the state schools? That was the Tory scare story wasn’t it? And so many schools will close as no pupils left?

44 minutes ago, trousers said:

But do continue to scoff and sneer at others' points of view if it makes you feel intellectually superior though...

Come on, do I really need to answer that?

 

Edited Thursday at 06:08 by whelk

[Sir Ralph]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Imagine having to use the state system like so many others. Laughable how people want to defend this. Eton is not a charity. 

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.

Edited Thursday at 06:43 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

32 minutes ago, whelk said:

The vast majority of parents cannot afford private education for their children - assume you don’t dispute that?

Why should a subsidy, which is what it is a VAT exemption is, be in place for those that are in a privileged position to chose?  

State education needs to improve and that is more likely the more rich kids, and influential parents are involved in it. Schools were actually in a relatively decent state under Blair, largely due to increase in funding. 

There will be individual stories that can make any tax seem unfair but taxes need to be collected somehow. 

Haven’t seen the stats on all the kids that were doing everyone a favour by opting out of using state resources, that now due to 20% price hike are flooding the state schools? That was the Tory scare story wasn’t it? And so many schools will close as no pupils left?

Come on, do I really need to answer that?

 

For me, the VAT issue is the same as for health in that it's provided by the state by default. I elect to fund my healthcare. I do it because I benefit, not because the strain on the state is reduced, but it is. If I ever elected private education, the same would apply.

There's no VAT on private health costs. 

I'm not with Ralph in thinking there should be a tax break per se (I take your point though that not charging VAT it is a break - adding it is not punitive), but I don't see it as a luxury that should be vatable.

I also think the suggestion that VAT is being charged, and I paraphrase, to price the peasants out of nice schools, is nonsense. 

Edited Thursday at 06:41 by egg

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

For me, the VAT is the same as for health in that  it's provided by the state by default , but to varying standards. I elect to fund my healthcare. I do it because I benefit, not because the strain on the state is reduced, but it is. If I ever elected private education, the same would apply.

There's no VAT on the private health costs. 

I'm not with Ralph in thinking there should be a tax break per se (I take your point though that not charging it is a break), but I don't see it as a luxury that should be vatable.

I also think the suggestion that VAT is being charged, and I paraphrase, to price the peasants out of nice schools, is nonsense. 

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.

[iansums]

39 minutes ago, whelk said:

The vast majority of parents cannot afford private education for their children - assume you don’t dispute that?

Why should a subsidy, which is what it is a VAT exemption is, be in place for those that are in a privileged position to chose?  

State education needs to improve and that is more likely the more rich kids, and influential parents are involved in it. Schools were actually in a relatively decent state under Blair, largely due to increase in funding. 

There will be individual stories that can make any tax seem unfair but taxes need to be collected somehow. 

Haven’t seen the stats on all the kids that were doing everyone a favour by opting out of using state resources, that now due to 20% price hike are flooding the state schools? That was the Tory scare story wasn’t it? And so many schools will close as no pupils left?

Come on, do I really need to answer that?

 

Because someone who pays for private schooling is still paying for state schools as part of their taxes, they don't get a deduction on their income or council tax.

[iansums]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

For me, the VAT issue is the same as for health in that it's provided by the state by default. I elect to fund my healthcare. I do it because I benefit, not because the strain on the state is reduced, but it is. If I ever elected private education, the same would apply.

There's no VAT on private health costs. 

I'm not with Ralph in thinking there should be a tax break per se (I take your point though that not charging VAT it is a break - adding it is not punitive), but I don't see it as a luxury that should be vatable.

I also think the suggestion that VAT is being charged, and I paraphrase, to price the peasants out of nice schools, is nonsense. 

Although Lord Kinnock suggested recently there should be.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

Devils advocate - is not charging VAT, in itself, not a tax break? Is the charging of VAT merely a removal of that break? 

My position remains though that VAT shouldn't be charged on private health costs or school fees. 

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The politics of envy.

You sound like a scratched record constantly trotting out your silly mantra. Why do you assume it is driven by envy? I guess someone self-centred can’t fathom anyone not thinking solely of themselves at all time

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Devils advocate - is not charging VAT, in itself, not a tax break? Is the charging of VAT merely a removal of that break? 

My position remains though that VAT shouldn't be charged on private health costs or school fees. 

By calling it a tax break my personal view is it doesn’t reflect the full context. We all pay tax for schools. Those who pay for private schools have already paid their fair share. They are then paying more for a private space to the benefit of the state. I think penalising them with a tax on this is an unfair tax. 

[whelk]

43 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Why is it wrong to have the option of a better eduction?

Did I say abolish private schools? Again you seem to have an argument in your head and want to project the opposing (looney leftie -lol) view without actually reading.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Our daughter went to a local private school and my son to the local comprehensive. The private school just happened to be my daughter's preference, not because it was a private school per se (I would say both schools were on a par in terms of quality of teaching, so we weren't doing it to gain some kind of advantage). Whilst we had a relatively decent income I wouldn't describe us as "wealthy" or "rich". We certainly had to make compromises to be able to afford it, and we just about managed it. Anecdotally, having got to know the circumstances of most of the parents in her year during the 5 years she was there, I would say under 20% of the parents could be classed as wealthy / rich (I guess that depends on your definition). Obviously that's a relatively small sample, so might be an outlier admittedly, but who's to say that demographic wasn't mirrored at other private schools across the country? But do continue to scoff and sneer at others' points of view if it makes you feel intellectually superior though...

I had an exclusive education. I had a corner all to myself, and I didn't see anyone else with a cap like mine. D for definitely intelepha...intelu...smart.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

By calling it a tax break my personal view is it doesn’t reflect the full context. We all pay tax for schools. Those who pay for private schools have already paid their fair share. They are then paying more for a private space to the benefit of the state. I think penalising them with a tax on this is an unfair tax. 

The point is that they don't have to. It's a choice. A luxury if you will. I remain of the view though that it and health should be exempt, but the view that someone has paid once for something that they elect not to use, so shouldn't pay a value added tax on something they elect to subscribe to, doesn't hold water.