Schooliform

[BoldonLad]

That is one thing no one should ever get used to!

How do you propose we redress the accidents of birth which mean:

- some people are tall, some arent
- some people are more, or less, intelligent than others
- some people are more healthy than others
- some people can jump higher than others
- some people are more skilled at football/cricket/rugby/etc etc than others

the list goes on

we can recognise these differences, we can even try to mitigate them, but, we cannot eliminate them, I am not even sure we should try to eliminate them, Genetic Engineering, Selective Breeding anyone?

 

[The Crofted Crest]

How do you propose we redress the accidents of birth which mean:

- some people are tall, some arent
- some people are more, or less, intelligent than others
- some people are more healthy than others
- some people can jump higher than others
- some people are more skilled at football/cricket/rugby/etc etc than others

the list goes on

we can recognise these differences, we can even try to mitigate them, but, we cannot eliminate them, I am not even sure we should try to eliminate them, Genetic Engineering, Selective Breeding anyone?

Yeah, quite right. We should just accept that homelessness, poverty, poor health, inequality and violence are the natural order of things and will, can, never change because some people just happen to be slightly taller than others. Way to go! 🙂

 

[Rusty Nails]

The over-riding cause of advantage, other than natural physical/mental abilities, is money.

Money buys advantage in education in many ways; private education, private tutors, better access to books/IT, better space/privacy/quiet for study at home, being able to live closer to better schools, etc. It is always going to happen, even in a totalitarian state, and the best we can do is to try to minimise both the advantages bought by wealth and the disadvantages due to a lack of it. It is a battle that will never be completely over while there is such a disparity of wealth but a start would be to stop the state further increasing the financial advantages via the taxation system, and improve the education system.

 

[cookiemonster]

How do you propose we redress the accidents of birth which mean:

- some people are tall, some arent
- some people are more, or less, intelligent than others
- some people are more healthy than others
- some people can jump higher than others
- some people are more skilled at football/cricket/rugby/etc etc than others

the list goes on

we can recognise these differences, we can even try to mitigate them, but, we cannot eliminate them, I am not even sure we should try to eliminate them, Genetic Engineering, Selective Breeding anyone?

You do realise that inequality and poverty are very expensive.

Sorting it is, in itself, not cheap but in the long run, the benefits are enormous and the cost of alleviating povery will have been reclaimed.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yeah, quite right. We should just accept that homelessness, poverty, poor health, inequality and violence are the natural order of things and will, can, never change because some people just happen to be slightly taller than others. Way to go! 🙂

That isn't what I said, but, you know that of course.

 

[icowden]

But then you have been slinging around personal insults, haven't you.

Not that I'm aware of, but you do you.

It's also spectacularly dim-witted, given that people pay tax on earnings. You claim to be a high-earner but not wealthy. You've extra disposable income to spend on luxury education... money that the majority don't have...but in your mind that doesn't matter because you make endless exceptions for yourself, one of them being that you "care" about your children, therefore implying that others don't.

Again, your failure in comprehension here is baffling. Releasing equity from your home is not disposable income. If my children had not had additional needs, we would probably have considered state school, although an all girls state school would have been preferred.

And anyone can have a Limited company. You doubtless have one as a potential tax dodge. To add to you not paying VAT on your luxury purchase.

By paying more tax you mean. I have a limited company because I worked as contractor for 12 years prior to Covid. I'm now full time employed and do work on the side through the company because working full time employed doesn't pay quite as well.

It is clear that you have a somewhat massive sense of entitlement, and view yourself as some sort of exception to the moral framework that us little people live by.

Whereas you seem to have some sort of massive chip on your shoulder. I know of several kids who have moved to private school from state school because they were being failed. In every case, the parents have remortgaged, scholarships applied for and in some cases bursaries applied for. In your blinkered world, private schools are only for the super-rich. I have just tried to explain to you that that is not the case.

 

[multitool]

Not that I'm aware of, but you do you.

No, I'll do you. A few pages back tlyou said I "only think about" myself. You claimed that you care more about your kids than I care about mine. You boasted that you earn more than me.

Again, your failure in comprehension here is baffling. Releasing equity from your home is not disposable income.

You have to have the equity in the first place, and that money has to come from somewhere. Its not free.

By paying more tax you mean. I have a limited company because I worked as contractor for 12 years prior to Covid. I'm now full time employed and do work on the side through the company because working full time employed doesn't pay quite as well.

I already know why you have a Limited company. I know you are a PM, and therefore doing some contracting work. You are paying your tax via company rather than PAYE. Makes no difference.

Whereas you seem to have some sort of massive chip on your shoulder

Not at all. I think wealthy people should pay tax on non-essential luxury purchases.

. I know of several kids who have moved to private school from state school because they were being failed. In every case, the parents have remortgaged, scholarships applied for and in some cases bursaries applied for. In your blinkered world, private schools are only for the super-rich. I have just tried to explain to you that that is not the case.

"Several kids" out of how many who attend private school?

In essence this is you granting yourself an exception again.

 

[Electric_Andy]

By paying for private school, you are already paying a large amount extra for what you deem to be a better standard of education. I don't see why this should be taxed. In fact, the whole idea of "if you can afford this, then you can afford more tax" is stupid. It penalises only the middle/high-middle earners. The very rich won't care or won't notice

 

[icowden]

By paying for private school, you are already paying a large amount extra for what you deem to be a better standard of education. I don't see why this should be taxed. In fact, the whole idea of "if you can afford this, then you can afford more tax" is stupid. It penalises only the middle/high-middle earners. The very rich won't care or won't notice

And this is exactly my point. Recently all private schools conducted surveys so they know the percentage of parents that would be badly affected if VAT were to be imposed on fees. I don't know the results of that survey but I would suspect around a 70/30 split (30% being the badly affected) purely based on the parents that I know.

The secondary issue is that there is no plan to introduce this in a way that would minimise disruption for the children being educated. It's just a flat change that is proposed. I'm sure schools will jump in to find ways to ensure that children don't have their GCSEs or A-Levels affected by arbitrary government policy, not least as it would affect their attendance and results.

However it will mean increased pressure on state schools, more places that are needed and more pressure on mental health services and local councils when children who cannot cope in schools with 2000 pupils and cannot find places in suitable small settings are badly let down.

 

[Mr Celine]

By paying for a supermarktpanzerkampfwagen you are already paying a large amount extra for what you deem to be a better standard of motoring. I don't see why this should be taxed. In fact, the whole idea of "if you can afford this, then you can afford more tax" is stupid. It penalises only the middle/high-middle earners. The very rich won't care or won't notice

FTFY

 

[icowden]

You have to have the equity in the first place, and that money has to come from somewhere. Its not free.

No. You buy a house. Or a flat. In our case my wife had a heart attack, of which one effect was to pay off the mortgage on the flat so we could move to a small house. We did that up and moved to a bigger house.

I already know why you have a Limited company. I know you are a PM, and therefore doing some contracting work. You are paying your tax via company rather than PAYE. Makes no difference.

I'm not a PM, and I think it does. If I do a piece of work for £10000, I bill for £12000. That's £2000 in VAT for the Government. I then pay corporation tax on the £10,000 so that's another £2,500 at the 2024 rate. I then pay my normal taxation rate of 20% or 40% depending on how much I have earned for the year. I get no pension unless I take out a private one, nor any paid holiday or sick leave. That's one of the benefits to moving to employed. So to pay an annual take home salary of £50,000 I would end up generating around £65,000 in tax for the Government and need to generate £115,000 of work (not real figures - I don't earn this much).

Not at all. I think wealthy people should pay tax on non-essential luxury purchases.
"Several kids" out of how many who attend private school?

I'd estimate between 20% and 30% would be badly affected by the imposition of VAT and around 70% to 80% wouldn't notice.

 

[multitool]

If 70-80% "wouldn't notice" then that is an excellent argument for them paying VAT.

Of course your estimation is plucked out of thin air, and doubtless you are granting them the exceptionalism you grant yourself.

I'd like a new car. Why should I pay VAT on it?

 

[The Crofted Crest]

I'm not a PM, and I think it does. If I do a piece of work for £10000, I bill for £12000. That's £2000 in VAT for the Government. I then pay corporation tax on the £10,000 so that's another £2,500 at the 2024 rate. I then pay my normal taxation rate of 20% or 40% depending on how much I have earned for the year. I get no pension unless I take out a private one, nor any paid holiday or sick leave. That's one of the benefits to moving to employed. So to pay an annual take home salary of £50,000 I would end up generating around £65,000 in tax for the Government and need to generate £115,000 of work (not real figures - I don't earn this much).

Do them figures actually stack up? Your take home pay, as it were, is a cost to your company and therefore deductible. You do not pay the VAT, your client does. You're just a conduit passing it on to HMRC.

 

[BoldonLad]

No. You buy a house. Or a flat. In our case my wife had a heart attack, of which one effect was to pay off the mortgage on the flat so we could move to a small house. We did that up and moved to a bigger house.


I'm not a PM, and I think it does. If I do a piece of work for £10000, I bill for £12000. That's £2000 in VAT for the Government. I then pay corporation tax on the £10,000 so that's another £2,500 at the 2024 rate. I then pay my normal taxation rate of 20% or 40% depending on how much I have earned for the year. I get no pension unless I take out a private one, nor any paid holiday or sick leave. That's one of the benefits to moving to employed. So to pay an annual take home salary of £50,000 I would end up generating around £65,000 in tax for the Government and need to generate £115,000 of work (not real figures - I don't earn this much).


I'd estimate between 20% and 30% would be badly affected by the imposition of VAT and around 70% to 80% wouldn't notice.

Corporation tax is only payable on profits, not turnover. Your salary would be deducted from turnover, corporation tax would only be payable on the balance (less other allowable deductions, eg material costs etc etc).

The Pension, Holiday Pay, Sickness pay is the "penalty" for being effectively self employed, even if within a limited company. It is no different to being employed, except that in the case of the employed, these costs are effectively "hidden" from the employee, because the Employer deals with them. The solution is to allow for these "on costs" in your Fee. That is what the Employer in a "normal" employer/employee relationship does, the Pension, Holiday Pay, Sickness pay is loaded on the price of the product or service provided.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

What's the situation in the UK? Isn't an employer required by law to arrange a pension, holiday pay, social insurance, sick pay, etc. for employees. If you had a limited company here in Holland, @icowden, you'd be covered.
Or are you just abusing the law to your own advantage?