The prepayment benefit only exists if you would otherwise have been investing in gilts, which yield 1.5%, if you wouldn't have been then the chances are that you will not benefit.
Well, I never said everyone wants to, or is in a position to be able to.
Radley quoted 1 in 6 taking up the opportunity.
And low risk investments will normally form part of a balanced portfolio - in my hypothetical example I was thinking of someone who may have several £100K or £M invested at various levels of risk / reward, with the £50K being the bit that was going to go into the low-risk category, boosted a chunk by getting the income tax free (albeit sharing a bit of that with the 'charity' who's tax exempt status makes it possible).
There is no subsidy as such.
We might be in danger of getting into semantics, but to me an 80% relief on business rates looks somewhere close.
has anyone ever put (or considered putting) their kids in an underperforming school (by choice, not because it was the closest) in a hope it would raise the academic ability of said school?
😆
outofbreath - Member
Really? So if (say) a 1 pence tax subsidy for the hyper wealthy was shown to bring 50 wealthy people to live in Scotland who would (say) spend £999,999,999,999,999,999 in Scotland over the next 10 years you'd say no?50p worth of tax break to attract £999,999,999,999,999,999 and you'd say no on principle?
Admirable.
Definitely a magnificent proposition. Sadly I'm one of those people who don't believe the world is flat, that Santa Claus really comes down the chimney, or the side of the Brexit Bus.
(Not) ofd that you accuse people of lying ducks and then suggest I am a Brexshiteer! Nicely done. Shows who tells the truth and who doesn’t.
Also odd that people focus on rich parents when they are not the ones who will be adversely affected by this silly posturing.
Politicians are very lucky that people swallow this kind of stuff - Salmond, Trump, Gove, McDonnell etc.
In the same way that as an Englishman I find it ludicrous that the SNP are attacking private schools in Scotland when the public education in Scotland is getting worse, as shown by the Scottish governments figures.
Isn’t the link obvious - hence the sensitivity to scrutiny and the need for distractions?
In the same way that as an Englishman I find it ludicrous that the SNP are attacking private schools in Scotland when the public education in Scotland is getting worse, as shown by the Scottish governments figures.
Well said sir.
teamhurtmore - Member
(Not) ofd that you accuse people of lying ducks and then suggest I am a Brexshiteer! Nicely done. Shows who tells the truth and who doesn’t...
You're one of those economic witchdoctors, aren't you?
When are we going to hear the case for wealthy people receiving subsidy from the taxpayer?
BTW nothing against private schools. Perfectly fine if you can afford them out of your [b]own[/b] pocket.
Clearly what the SNP should have done is change all the qualifications so that no one has the first clue whats going on with schools when the cuts kick in!
Ask your government - they continue to support the idea across the tertiary sector. It’s one of their priority policies. They will be able to explain it for you....
As an economist I am more interested in the outcomes involved. In this case, it is pretty much the opposite of what is suggested by the real witch doctors here. This proposal is likely to cost more than it saves and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school. The well off will be much less affected. Hence my original post about laws of unintended consequences.
The tweet about the Fettes bursar was indicative of the attitudes of those involved.
As before, Scotland deserves better, much better.
and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school.
Didn't realise it was a function of the state to subsidise people who want to send their kids to private school.
This proposal is likely to cost more than it saves and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school.
I asked someone else if I could see their working out on this. Could we see yours?
and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school
What sort of income range might these poor less well off folks be in?
A wide range - one of the reasons why @30% of pupils currently receive financial support.
What sort of income range might these poor less well off folks be in?
Mr sister in law earns less than £40k and sends her daughter to private school. I earn way less than you and my son goes.
Re costs. As said previously 100% any benefit from increasing rates for private schools or adding VAT would not be put back in to school budgets, so you tell me, what is the avg cost per year per pupil in a state school?
A wide range
Such as.
one of the reasons why @30% of pupils currently receive financial support.
Do you have a source for that?
Mr sister in law earns less than £40k
So do most of the people in the country. How much are the fees?
Not sure probably £4K ish a term, but she is on a scholarship
And yes I know that the avg wage is less than £40k your point being ? Earlier in the thread it was assumed that because I send my son to private school I must earn £100k +
Yes. It’s very easy AA there are officially statistics available for all. As I n sure you tell your students - go and do some research on your own and then we can discuss. Teach a man to fish.....
and she manages that without any other income? It must be almost half her take home spent on fees.
Mr sister in law earns less than £40k and sends her daughter to private school.
For context:
Mean Average UK salary: £27K
Median: £22K
Mr sister in law earns less than £40k and sends her daughter to private school.
For context:
Mean Average UK salary: £27K
Median: £22K
Yes. It’s very easy AA there are officially statistics available for all. As I n sure you tell your students - go and do some research on your own and then we can discuss. Teach a man to fish.....
So you made it up then?
Yes there are figures showing independent schools support pupils financially, but ultimately there's loads of things people would like but can't afford so why should the state subsidise a "like to have" rather than a "need to have "
No. Just don’t spoon feed students. Very bad way to educate as you must surely know. Much better if people do their own work first. Equips them for life. They could even read around the subject a little.
You can even compare the figures for Scotland v rUK - the former is slightly less generous but only slightly.
It’s very easy
What I always say to anyone who asks me to prove what i just said - its the sensible and grown up approach rather than being pedagogically vapidgo and do some research on your own and then we can discuss.
For context:
And your point is? Sorry are you suggesting that people who earn more than the National avg should pay for kids of parents on or below the national avg to go to private school ?
Or are we talking about all joining arms as Comrades where everyone gets equal pay and equal rights to everything- Utopia itself.
so why should the state subsidise a "like to have" rather than a "need to have "
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it’s not flawed, however to change the status quo IMO would cost more, and the whole thing is just an easy vote winner.
Very bad way to educate
Have you got a source for that ?
Anyone with educational experience will know no one single approach is the best as it depends on factors ranging from the subject, the level, the person etc...dont ask me to prove it - though it will be incredibly simple to do so, just do your own research.
No. Just don’t spoon feed students.
Dont want to burst your bubble but I'm just a bloke on the internet not your student.
When you going to get back to me with the size of this range of incomes or the working out that shows that the policy is bad rather than just your theory designed to fit your narrow narrative?
Anyone with educational experience will know no one single approach is the best as it depends on factors ranging from the subject, the level, the person etc...dont ask me to prove it
Havent asked anyone to prove anything just asked them to back up their ideas with some data.
And your point is?
I would imagine his point is that you can earn under 40k and still be earning a good deal more than most.
After you have bothered to do some easy research. Should take less than 15 minutes. My students do this as a matter of course.
I am well aware of that see the post above
Obvs THM is just doing what THM does which is to use any subject to pretend he is an expert whilst patronising anyone daft enough to debate with him
After you have bothered to do some easy research. Should take less than 15 minutes. My students do this as a matter of course.
What is it you do for a living again?
Obviously your students are benefiting from a much better education than I got as I have better things to do with my time.
Clearly - but imo few better things in life than educating yourself. A teacher once told me that. He was very good at his job.
AA - I still don’t get where you are going with that.
Private education is based on your ability to pay if you can afford it you have the option. What is so ethically wrong with that in your mind ?
I can’t afford a luxury yacht because I don’t earn enough, I either have to be content with that or go and do something about it. Who knows one day I may earn £800k a year as a university CEO. At that point I obviously won’t be welcome here as there is a distinct bitterness to anyone who is financially successful.
Hard to say what THM does in the real world . On the EU thread he is an international recruiter, has interviewed MPs for jobs, and his business is planning for Brexits as business does [ no details given obvs], he has had to deal with immigration [ dont push him on this he will have a wobble as he did at Zokes] yet on an education one he trots out "his students" with no details ever given. It seems his internet life is very very busy indeed and somewhat diverse.
Perhaps he is a fiction writer?
Do you expect the luxury yacht sales yard to get a swerve on their rates bill to make a yacht more affordable?
FFS kilo did you not read what I wrote above !?
Probably not I'm fighting a pizza before going to the pub 😉
Didn't realise it was a function of the state to subsidise people who want to send their kids to private school
The problem @kilo with that sort of argument is that all those higher rate tax payers could use the same logic to argue that they shouldn't be paying tax to fund a benefits system that they will never use.
Private education is based on your ability to pay if you can afford it you have the option. What is so ethically wrong with that in your mind ?
Not much at all tbh. I would like to see all have access to a great education but hey ho most dont agree with me.
I am just curious as to why people seem so certain that taxing private schools a little will see the state education system crumble under the burden of all these new pupils and the poor will suffer more as they will be the ones having to leave when fees rise.
I'm not really sure how poor these "poor" are or how much impact the tax would have. Lots of people have firm opinions on these outcomes but dont seem to have much to back it up with so I conclude they are just saying whatever they like to fit their narrative and views.
For context:
And your point is? Sorry are you suggesting that people who earn more than the National avg should pay for kids of parents on or below the national avg to go to private school ?Or are we talking about all joining arms as Comrades where everyone gets equal pay and equal rights to everything- Utopia itself.
Err, no. Not sure how you managed to read all (or, indeed, any) of that into what I wrote - you ascribe deeper meaning and subtlety to my posting than is warranted by a laaaaaaaaarge margin.
If you'd quoted the whole post it would be blindingly obvious what my point was, since I quoted within it the comment to which it was posted in response. The "for context" bit was intended to explain concisely how the succeeding information related to the anteceding. By the latter being context for the former.
Happy to clear that one up.
...alternatively they do some basic research.
The educational report card hasn’t been published recently has it? That would be too much of a coincidence
The problem @kilo with that sort of argument is that all those higher rate tax payers could use the same logic to argue that they shouldn't be paying tax to fund a benefits system that they will never use.
Isnt that why they try to reduce the welfare state?
It does kind of miss the point of the welfare state and gives more fuel to the view that banning private education would be a positive. Then the rich will suddenly want to pay!
or just claim they have and not present italternatively they do some basic research.
Ok done it it says you are wrong
No need to ask me to prove it
Is it Sunday?
ceepers - Member
The problem @kilo with that sort of argument is that all those higher rate tax payers could use the same logic to argue that they shouldn't be paying tax to fund a benefits system that they will never use.
True but the argument would be that society has, at present, undertaken to provide a series of services, education, Nhs, policing out of general taxation if you want a different provider be that BUPA, Eton or group 4 patrols pay for it yourself with no state subsidies. Off to pub now, enjoy.
