Forum menu
You’re assuming that our ‘leaders’ are there because the private sector produces better leaders rather than just producing people more likely to become leaders
Exactly, as a few have said in this thread. I don't care if people want to pay to send their kids to get an education that is not really any better but I do care when they are paying for them to have a better position in life as that is why we end up with the UK as it is today.
No one sends their kids to private school unless they are rich or well connected. To be able to afford the fees you must be in the richest few % of the country - even for the cap little private schools that no one has heard of and that provide a rubbish education
TJ - I’ve just googled the Netherlands Taxation system, and the top bracket of income tax above 90k is 50%. My marginal tax rate (due to loss if personal allowance) is 65%. The idea that we are a low tax society is fanciful.
A disproportionate number of people in power went to Oxford or Cambridge.
Should we ban these universities too?
No. That's just stupid.
I have worked with Oxbridge admissions for 15 years, and the problem they have is that they want the highest performing academic kids. But by most measures, guess who tends to fall into this category? Private school kids. Oxford and Cambridge work with the students they get.
Entirely to their credit, they go to huge lengths to seek out and recruit kids from state schools, but courses such as Classics and ASNAC aren't generally even known by state school kids, and even if they knew they existed, being prepared to apply is a process that should have started years earlier.
Again, the answer is, in my opinion, to pull resources from private schools and start offering a decent curriculum with all the resources, to every student in the country. Then Oxbridge would have applicants from across the spectrum.
@kimbers thanks for differentiating between nature and nuture. A point which people like the Tory MP completely miss.
IQ can be measured at lower levels in terms of intellectual disability. MENSA type IQ scoring and academic performance as a measure of intelligence is where things break down.
Somebody ^^^^ mentioned Grammar schools receiving more per pupil than secondary schools. Bobbins. My kids both go to local grammars and research has shown ppf is lower than local secondary’s. Both schools have great facilities paid for by an extremely aggressive PTA fundraising committee.
Dants - Well you are comparing apples and pears there - your top rate of tax is not 65% its 40 % and falls the higher you earn as NI is reduced - and in the netherlands once above a certain level of income you have to pay a lot of money for healthcare on top. there is also the indirect taxation. So not only do you pay 50% tax, you pay around another 10% of income for healthcare and then pay local taxes adn consumption taxes at a higher rate in the netherlands
A few years ago my brother in law and I were on similar gross incomes ( he is dutch). He was supporting a wife and two kids. My net income was significantly higher after all costs and taxes. a
Tax take in the UK is low - no doubt at all. Thats total tax take as a % of GDP.
I'm sorry I offended you Tonyg2003, but as I stated that is my personal experience of attending 5 secondary schools and however many teachers / other pupils that equates too. I imagine your wife is an amazing teacher.
Both schools have great facilities paid for by an extremely aggressive PTA fundraising committee.
And in my experience parents willing to donate ££££ because they are getting free state education instead of having to pay private school fees, the grammar school my son went to raised £1m in a very short time with big parental donations, schools in poorer areas just wouldn't be able to compete on that level.
Private schools should have to pay that for every teacher they recruit.
Does that mean that every airline has to pay for every one of their pilots that learnt to fly in the armed forces?
@DT78 I think that you are mixing up the thought that teachers who have more time to spend with pupils / more opportunity to share cool experiences care more than state school teachers. Very very different.
TJ - for every extra £2 I earn I lose £1 of my personal allowance, so I’m afraid I am taxed at 65% on any income over 100k. It’s a good problem to have as you need to earn a good salary, but every £1000 pay rise I get sends £650 to HMRC.
Dickyboy - absolutely correct, but they still get less ppf than the local secondary’s.
@molgrips Fair, but you assume that private schools are full of self serving scum’s kids, when in fact some, or most of them are full of ordinary peoples kids , its just that the mums and dads worked bloody hard to send them there.
I don't assume this at all. What you say about hard working parents is true. The kid opposite, his parents are NHS doctors. However, safe to say his parents didn't come from council estates.
But wouldn't it be nice if parents didn't have to work so hard to get the best education for their kids? Wouldn't it be great if the local school was just as good?
But wouldn’t it be nice if parents didn’t have to work so hard to get the best education for their kids? Wouldn’t it be great if the local school was just as good?
Yes, and abolishing private schools (and appropriating their property etc) is going to do absolutely nothing to achieve that aim.
Yes, and abolishing private schools (and appropriating their property etc) is going to do absolutely nothing to achieve that aim.
Do you think that education policy is simply to close the doors of Eton and that's that?
In any case, as detailed earlier in the thread - these Eton kids would have to go somewhere, wouldn't they? I wonder if distributing the kids of the richest and most successful kids around the normal schools in the country might change society a little bit?
Maybe it *would* have a positive effect after all?
No one sends their kids to private school unless they are rich or well connected
Not in my experience, I never went nor do my kids. But family and friends have sent kids to private school and they were neither rich nor well connected
Do you think that education policy is simply to close the doors of Eton and that’s that?
No it's to make local authorities become the child protection audit agency, should stop another Rotherham or Rochdale.... From coming to light
No one sends their kids to private school unless they are rich or well connected
Thats not strictly true. There are Bursary Funds to assist students with financial constraints which go towards the institution(s) who wish to place students where financial support is limited or not forthcoming from the parents.
<h2 id="to-19-bursary-fund-a-summary">16 to 19 Bursary Fund: a summary</h2>
The 16 to 19 Bursary Fund provides financial support to help students overcome specific financial barriers to participation so they can remain in education.There are 2 types of 16 to 19 bursaries:
- bursaries for defined vulnerable groups of up to £1,200 a year
- discretionary bursaries which institutions award to meet individual needs, for example, help with the cost of transport, meals, books and equipment
My sons both attended the local Boy's comprehensive and received a very good education. They both enjoyed their time there. When the local private school is Eton, needless to say, the intake to this state school is from a more wealthy (and privately educated) sector of society. The best bit is that those pupils who were not academic STILL had a great education and enjoy their time. It opened my eyes a bit to why comprehensive education can be, given the broader mix of pupils.
Funny thing is, my son's best friend did go to Eton, he did OK, with A'levels about the same as my son. He's now reading History. At York. He was so put off by the environment at Eton, the last thing he wanted was another three years at Oxgbridge. Eton is not a particularly academic or sporting school. It's a nice place though.
Like the NHS, the miracle is that the state can provide what it does for so little spend.
Dantz - thats simple nonsense. at that level of salery you have decreasing taxation as your NI contributions decrease and you do not lose tax allowances - or are you in some special datnz only taxation scheme?
You are not being taxed at 65% 40% is the top rate plus the 2% NI ( ???)( 2 % above a certain level - 9% for the rest of us)
BIg and daft - how much are the fees you "non rich" friends spend?
I suspect once again you simply fail to understand that to be able to afford school fees you have to be rich because you do not understand what rich is.
TJ ... https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/income-over-100000
the personal allowance is reduced progressively from 100K to nil at 125K - hence every pound earned in this range is taxed at 40% AND the allowance reduced as well. Whatever you might think of tax rates and progression, I believe EVERYONE should have a personal allowance. The government thinks otherwise.
EDIT THe 2% NI is for earnings over 50K and applies to all. Hence earnings from 100-125K are taxed at the highest marginal rate - even above the 45% for >150K
I'd be quite happy to see University intake from private schools restricted to state school levels. 7% I believe. Too much gaming of the system at the moment. Unless you think rich people are just more intelligent than poor people?
Entirely to their credit, they go to huge lengths to seek out and recruit kids from state schools, but courses such as Classics and ASNAC aren’t generally even known by state school kids, and even if they knew they existed, being prepared to apply is a process that should have started years earlier.
Indeed, and I expect its easier to choose classics if you have a place in a family company anyway. Medicine and veterinary are the opposite. Sad really I teach loads of bright kids biology but so few do it at uni all the bright state school kids do vet or medicine.
TJ on the point about Scottish taxation I was wrong you were right.
On the points you are making about NI and effective tax rate I'm afraid you are wrong. The 2% NI rate is what is charged on contributions over a threshold, the earnings below the threshold are still taxed at 12%. The effect of this is that, for the UK, the effective direct taxation rates are 32%, 42% & 47% when you add NI and income tax rates together. There are however a few "hidden" rates that kick in to reduce certain allowances. When you lose child benefit that one is effectively 100%, when you are losing your tax free allowance that is 60% and when the pension taper kicks in that is around 65% (this bit includes the employers contribution). Once you are through that it drops again to 45%. The tinkering makes a mess of the system.
I do agree with your point about being rich to afford private school. Some family members are considering this for their kids and there won't be a lot of change from 20k pa once all the costs are added in. Edit that is per child too.
Do you think that education policy is simply to close the doors of Eton and that’s that?
No, in Labours case it seems to be to close Eton *and* stop inspecting state schools properly.
Ta tired / gonefishin - thats news to me about the removal of personal allowances so I apologise to Dantz I called wrong.
Its still not a tax rate of 65% tho but thats semantics
the highest rate of marginal taxation is of course at the lower end when due to benefits tapers and the like you can get a 95% marginal rate
due to the top rate of NI the effective tax rate does drop again one you are rich as NI rate drops
Unless you think rich people are just more intelligent than poor people?
I think they probably are. I think they're better looking as well.
Natural selection, innit.
Attractive intelligent people aren't looking for poverty stricken losers to breed with.
OOB - actually its about inspecting them properly - ask any inspector - offstead does a much poorer job than the old school inspectors.
No one sends their kids to private school unless they are rich or well connected. To be able to afford the fees you must be in the richest few % of the country
I know couples that send their only child to private school. They earn on or around the average wage for couples both employed in full time work.
Some people are sacrificing plenty for themselves to be able to send a child to private school.
There are also kids at private schools on bursary's so they dont pay full fees.
I know the vast majority of people will be in the top earners and may have several children in private education, but this is not always the case.
molgrips
Do you think that education policy is simply to close the doors of Eton and that’s that?
Unfortunately, based on the absence of any other constructive strategy from the Labour party (ditching Ofsted not being constructive), er... yes.
No, in Labours case it seems to be to close Eton *and* stop inspecting state schools properly.
You assume they have started inspecting them properly!
I think they probably are. I think they’re better looking as well.
Natural selection, innit.
Attractive intelligent people aren’t looking for poverty stricken losers to breed with.
Did you see Peaky Blinders last night, you'd like that Oswald Mosley fella!
ditching Ofsted not being constructive
I think it could be, depends what its replaced with. Ofsted are just the government of the days attack dogs. I'd like to see Labour take education out of government control to a large extent.
Ofsted doesn't inspect schools properly. Labour are proposing replacing it with something that attempts to do it properly. Can't see a problem with that.
Molgrips
And as long as the rich can buy their way into better schools then the quality of everyone else’s education is not their problem so they won’t care about it.
'zackly
OOB – actually its about inspecting them properly – ask any inspector – offstead does a much poorer job than the old school inspectors.
I can't ask an inspector but I can ask a teacher and in their view OFSTED is already rigorous enough. Labour aren't planning on making it more rigorous, they're hoping to keep the teaching unions happy by relaxing standards.
It's not clear why OFSTED needs to be abolished at all. They could reduce standards by tweaking what's already there.
Plus, it's a vote loser, parents love OFSTED. Not just for schools but for Nursery care. The first thing we looked for was OFSTED outstanding. No parent is going to vote to abolish that.
I think they probably are. I think they’re better looking as well.
Natural selection, innit.
Attractive intelligent people aren’t looking for poverty stricken losers to breed with.
you’d like that Oswald Mosley fella!
You realise he was a wealthy bloke who had intelligent and good looking kids? ...and that's in spite of the dating handicap of being a swivel eyed fascist.
Thanks TiRed - as I said not after sympathy, but some people simply don’t seem to understand the hidden taxes many of us do already pay.
Where is the money to State Educate 650,000 extra pupils going to come from, btw? (Approx 4 billion)
its not about reducing standards at all - its about making the inspections actually meaningful. Ofstead inspections are not meaningful. they create huge stress for no gain. My father was a school inspector and thats his view. We don't have offstead in scotland - we continued =with the old approach which is nurturing and co operative not prescriptive and punitive
Dantz - did you spot my apology above?
Where is the money to State Educate 650,000 extra pupils going to come from, btw? (Approx 4 billion)
Tax increases on the rich, I'd expect.
Ofstead inspections are not meaningful. they create huge stress for no gain.
They are *very* stressful for Teachers, sounds like Labour are looking at reducing that stress to please the Teaching Unions. Hence I'm saying "less rigorous".
Meaningful? Gain? There's a deffo gain in the situations I've been aware of. It's taken me 20 years to come around to it but over the last five years or so I've seen OFSTED working superbly.
Again, I don't see the need to abolish, if they want to make it less rigorous I'm sure it could be tweaked and the name changed which would be far cheaper that scrapping it and starting again.
TJ - just read that as “analogy” so been searching back all your old posts !!!
Thanks - no apology needed - we generally only see the parts of the tax system that are relevant to our situation.
Doctors are in a very similar situation - doing overtime simply isn’t worth it money wise.
I think I can claim to have paid the highest proportion of my income in tax when I was active running a business in France. Excellent value for money as far as I'm concerned. I'd happily pay a bit more to invest in communities that need it more than mine.
Junior went to the local schools like all the other local kids. His contemparies are doing all sorts of things and doing well. He's still in the system and it's costing me just his rent, a grant (remember those), modest fees covered by a regional grant, an Erasmus year at the Humboldt under the same conditions (thank you the EU).
I don't bother with private health care or any insurance, I'm quite satisfied with what the secu provides.
The local swimming pool is ace, as is the white water center, the sports grounds, the subsidised clubs, the refuge collection and recycling, the parks and gardens, the local services... .
As with most things you get what you pay for, rejoice in your tax bill.
thegeneralist
Member
Molgrips
And as long as the rich can buy their way into better schools then the quality of everyone else’s education is not their problem so they won’t care about it.
‘zackly
Who are these 'rich'? There are plenty of people like me, who are nowhere near the top 20% of earners on here, let alone the country, who send their kids to private school. We do that because state schools are, by and large, pretty poor, and we forego many luxuries to invest in our child's education.
Before I get shouted down, I have a PGCE, have taught in state and private schools in the UK and abroad, and have a masters in education, so I have some experience of what I'm talking about.
I agree with the replacement of Ofsted, but abolishing private schools, or 'opening them up to state school students' (whatever that means) will only result in dragging everyone down to a lower level. It's typical old school Labour, and the results of similar thinking in the 70s were largely responsible for ushering in Thatcherism in the 80s. Be careful what you wish for.
JP