UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Goods and services being tax exempt is a way of incentivizing people to buy them. I don't see the reason, why we would not incentivize patents to invest in education of their children.
It's actually compulsory so no need to incentivise anything
That argument falls apart because state schools exist and 93% of children already attend. Which means private schools are not very popular despite their tax exempt status. So it is not encouraging many people to attend them and it is not like not going to a private school is not investing in your child's education since a free alternative that is not a complete shit hole exists. Turns out well funded public services can be a good thing and we don't need to privatize everything to see the best results.
In reality this seems more like a tax on rich parents who are the only ones that can afford expensive private schools in the first place all to hopefully better fund the free for everyone else state schools that most people already use.
What you are saying is, there is a reason to discourage people to give their children worse education justs because they can afford it? Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford. Some people can obviously afford the top of healthcare by paying extra. So what you are saying is: abolish being rich. But where do incebtives come from? Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today's well fed members of society do that, but they should. Nothing wrong with eating first, but they have to do their part, which they don't. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won't change that or significantly impact public school funding. They have you fight other groups in society so you won't take revenge on the bad CEOs in this world that eat first.
Yes this is true. And how do we get everybody access to as much as possible? Provide good quality services for free to everyone. Not by encouraging a tiny fraction of of people that private schools are vastly better then public ones.
VAT, which I believe this is what they where exempt from, is 20%, not 2%. It might still be a small amount overall, but why should that matter? Any more money towards public education is a benefit. I would like to see other efforts to increase that further from other areas but I am not going to be against this just because it is not a big enough difference.
Ultra super rich, yes. They don't need all that money and it could be used to better the lives of a lot more people. The wealth gap increasing does not improve the lives of people, just they few that are on top.
I mean yeah? That is my point. They should but they don't. So what benefit do they give us? There has been a big push for trickle down economics for a long time... but it does not work. All we have seen is an increased wealth gap and more people getting into poverty. We need to start taxing the rich and actually funnel that money to the people that need it - defend the group as a whole, which they are failing to do currently.
Just to say it again. I agree with taxing the rich. I don'ta agree where you raise a minuscule amount of taxes from 501c private schools. Let's call for a 30% wealth tax so we get a wealth ceiling.
It's estimated at over a billion pounds, which isn't insignificant at all in UK terms.
501c? What do US tax orgs have to do with UK education?
Nonprofit. Don't know how they are called in the UK, but they usually work the same everywhere.
Any chance that if you don't even know the basis by which they're free of VAT you might not be well enough informed to be touting an opinion on it?
What do you mean? Obviously knowledge about the usa applies everywhere and makes you informed enough to comment on any country's systems.
I think running my own company for 10 years kinda qualifies me to know how taxing vat differences on a balance sheet works. Consumers usually see only the Vat added...
It probably does, it's just not relevant to what we're talking about.
A tiny amount of tax on the luxury "schools" for the ultra-rich can be used to invest in actual real schools for the education of the entire country.
Well, if it's just a tiny amount, why not instead use a big amount of taxes to improve public schools so private schools have nothing better to offer? And then tax wealth
That would be ideal, yes :)
Why keep open a tax exemption that's purely for rich people who want use their money to get their children the sort of education which means they stay at the top of the socioeconomic pile?
These same people are delighted when general schools funding is at its lowest level per pupil and everyone else's kids don't have enough staff or books in their schools - even more advantage for their kids.
The concept is simple. Education good, no taxes. Education no taxes but some people need to pay them for whatever reason will probably be canceled in court. Just strait up tax wealth for everybody the same rules, then nobody can cry "discrimination"
You have simplified beyond the point of meaning and right into falsehood.
You keep bringing up wealth tax as if it's either this or that. It isn't. I've not seen anyone here argue with taxing wealth. Do both.
Tax unnecessary inequality-perpetuating private education like every other luxury and tax wealth too. Both. Simple.
I agree with arguments 2 and 3, but 4 shows IMHO that taxing things rich parents buy anyway is not enforceable.
No, all 4 shows is that you have to give more government funding per pupil to schools in poorer areas.
I mean the richest 7% of people in the country, who according to the article, actually use these special schools.
Well, the article says "approximately 93%" go to proper schools, so I suppose it must be very slightly made up?
I also made a slight assumption that 100% minus 93% would leave us with 7% - but I didn't go to Eton, so I assume my maths is likely incorrect.
Anyway, to be fair, I am making an assumption and I'm missing out on those who are home schooled, as well as those in referral units or special education or those who don't go to school at all.
As a side note - do home schoolers and non-schoolers recieve special tax breaks for "not using up a state school space"?
Anyway, it can't affect the numbers that much, as it still shows as "7% actually use these schools" on the government's own website:
gov.uk - Elitism in Britain (2019): "Just 7% of British people are privately educated"
Note that this is your Tory friends from 5 years ago - it's not the current Labour Government who are proposing removing the tax breaks on private schools.
You're right actually - I guess all those Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg types all have about 12 kids each, so it's likely an even smaller number.
I suppose other than the odd scholarship/inheritance bits here and there, I guess it must generally be somewhere between the top 1% and top 5% using the private schools system.