RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don't think you understand that 'just charging them tax' (ie VAT) would mean a vat size increase in 80% of their non pay costs; the smaller schools become immediately uneconomic and would close quickly, as putting fees up would drive parents away. The larger schools would similarly have to put fees up by c 15%, and inevitably would both lose pupils and bursaries, which are significant. Now if its about ideology, then you don't care.....until the extra cost to the taxpayer becomes clear- £416m pa at least after 5 years from conservative (:)) estimates.

just a few facts- sector already pays £4.1 bn in tax, and saves the taxpayer £3.5bn in pupil costs. The effect of removing charitable status will impact both those numbers. So the economic case is bolony (£1.7bn to reinvest in the state education system is based on all students remaining in private education going forward), and it would be better to admit that, and show the plan for how the extra pupils would be accomodated- if only 10% of pupils went to the state sector, thats £384m (plus any new building cost). As I said, I wouldn't start from here, and you are sceptical about the negative impact of adding VAT to their costs, but most of these schools run on very marginal profits; I don't expect you to cry for them, but the knock of the policy, will be significant. Priority should be given to raising the standards of state schools, and that will be tricky if you set them back in numbers terms before you even start.

Can't face googling that - could we have the sources for all those figures?

Well I did, so you can! I made them up obvs.
ISC website, Keir Starmer, cost per pupil is standard. Its quite simple really. The economics don't work, but Labour should be honest and say that's not the point (and fair enough, its a political question) and then how they will absorb a proportion of the 620000 kids ongoing.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Can't face googling that - could we have the sources for all those figures?

Well I did, so you can! I made them up obvs.
ISC website, Keir Starmer, cost per pupil is standard. Its quite simple really. The economics don't work, but Labour should be honest and say that's not the point (and fair enough, its a political question) and then how they will absorb a proportion of the 620000 kids ongoing.

I'm sure you've done some analysis but I can't see where those numbers are on the website, or which are the ones you calculated yourself, or what your calculations are. I don't have time to reinvent your wheel. (And it's too hot.)

Puja wrote:Truss vs Sunak in the vote, so it's basically PM Truss come September.

Could be better, but with the modern Conservative party, could've been a lot fucking worse.

Puja

Puja wrote:Truss vs Sunak in the vote, so it's basically PM Truss come September.

Could be better, but with the modern Conservative party, could've been a lot fucking worse.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Well I did, so you can! I made them up obvs.
ISC website, Keir Starmer, cost per pupil is standard. Its quite simple really. The economics don't work, but Labour should be honest and say that's not the point (and fair enough, its a political question) and then how they will absorb a proportion of the 620000 kids ongoing.

I'm sure you've done some analysis but I can't see where those numbers are on the website, or which are the ones you calculated yourself, or what your calculations are. I don't have time to reinvent your wheel. (And it's too hot.)

plenty of sources, HMC, Baine Cutler analysis are just two.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Truss vs Sunak in the vote, so it's basically PM Truss come September.

Could be better, but with the modern Conservative party, could've been a lot fucking worse.

Puja

It could have been worse; but I'm not sure it could have been "a lot" worse, certainly from those who managed to actually get nominated.
Badenoch would have been worse, then it was a toss up between Truss and Braverman for "worst of a bad bunch"

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm sure you've done some analysis but I can't see where those numbers are on the website, or which are the ones you calculated yourself, or what your calculations are. I don't have time to reinvent your wheel. (And it's too hot.)

plenty of sources, HMC, Baine Cutler analysis are just two.

OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.

IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: plenty of sources, HMC, Baine Cutler analysis are just two.

OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.

IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.

Yes, and SKS should be straight on that, rather than pretending that its a straight 'tax income' that can be reinvested in full.

(And you can find the data outside their report- though its possible these sourced the report; plus the VAT numbers equate to the savings that Labour claim will be made £1.6bn is from SKS's speech. I've also seen no counter argument to the ISC/HMC argument on the economics. If the figures were bollox, you'd think they'd have been challenged.)

morepork wrote:Just cut the corporate tax rate. I mean, that strategy has worked so well in the past....

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.

IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.

Yes, and SKS should be straight on that, rather than pretending that its a straight 'tax income' that can be reinvested in full.

(And you can find the data outside their report- though its possible these sourced the report; plus the VAT numbers equate to the savings that Labour claim will be made £1.6bn is from SKS's speech. I've also seen no counter argument to the ISC/HMC argument on the economics. If the figures were bollox, you'd think they'd have been challenged.)

Yeah, I like honesty too. It's a tricky choice to make for Labour though, when they will surely face a barrage of bare-faced lies from the Tories. How many new hospitals would you like?

Which Tyler wrote:I see Liz Truss' Grand Vizier and puppetmaster wants to show that he's down with the kids, so has released a portrait of himself with not one, but TWO packets of crisps.
That he doesn't seem to know what to do with...

But look behind him...
Now, is that a Ghostface costume? Is it for The Greater Good (the greater good)? Or is that the Klu Klux Clan's away kit?

(I wish I could claim credit for these, but alas)

morepork wrote:He looks like an inbred pedo. Did he actually post that?

morepork wrote:He looks like an inbred pedo. Did he actually post that?