Kopek Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 Others have said that KWC are not too fiscally sound. The fees could be reduced if the basic fee was cut. But a couple of thousand would only reduce fees by some 400 quid! Not likely to make much difference to the decision to continue sending your kid there but a considerable loss to KWC? Net VAT can be as low as 12 - 15% but not enough 'deductables' at the College to achieve that? If they gave 5% difference to reduce the fees, another 600 quid less in fees? So 1000 quid a year saving to the parents but another loss to KWC. Looks like parents will just have to suck it up??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 18 minutes ago, Kopek said: Others have said that KWC are not too fiscally sound. The fees could be reduced if the basic fee was cut. But a couple of thousand would only reduce fees by some 400 quid! Not likely to make much difference to the decision to continue sending your kid there but a considerable loss to KWC? Net VAT can be as low as 12 - 15% but not enough 'deductables' at the College to achieve that? If they gave 5% difference to reduce the fees, another 600 quid less in fees? So 1000 quid a year saving to the parents but another loss to KWC. Looks like parents will just have to suck it up??? Have you been drinking? The fees could be reduced if the basic fee was reduced. What does that mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 (edited) No and what it says. and.... if you want more to ponder over, the fees would still be higher than this year! By some 4000 quid! Edited August 29 by Kopek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expat. Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 9 hours ago, Chinahand said: I am not a socialist. It wasn't socialists who created the impetus for universal compulsory education. It was the Paris Exhibition of 1867 and the British capitalists who visited and were stunned by the quality of the engineering on display especially from the Americans (compulsory education from 1842) and Germany (1812). It dawned on them that an illiterate, ragged arsed, half starved workforce weren't as productive as they could be, and that the big ideas weren't happening in the UK but in countries were highly educated people were given the space to think things through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 Chinahand, I am a socialist but not a Marxist, leninist, Trotskyist that thinks levelling up should mean dragging the echelon down to 'our' level! Of course the 'Our' are the majority of people in any Country and have to be considered in levelling up to give credence to the idea. The rich will still be rich and able to spend 75k sending their 3 kids to a public school, while the proles earn 25k a year! But........ following the principle that 'those who can pay, should pay' means that higher taxes should be accepted by the privileged few??? This means that the VAT on school fees is justifiable as part of the 'can pay, should'. Most wealth in today's society does not come from a magic money tree but from contribution of the proles!!! Their support of these Tech innovations has made the echelon what it is??? Is there any evidence that Public education leads to more Tech leaders than the State education??? Seems unlikely? PS. Of course the VAT bonus should be spent on State education! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 (edited) 8 hours ago, Chinahand said: Ah Wrighty, you've gone to the nub of the issue there. And exposed another statist set of assumptions. Who should pay for someone else's education? Aren’t most of us lucky that the answer is the state, coercively taking money off people with menaces, to pay for the little darlings. Education is older than the state and people who understand the societal importance of education have always rallied around and selflessly supported schools and education, but that is a minority view, and in an age of the statist near monopoly very few people are willing to go beyond the taxes they pay to fund other people's education (clearly not Wrighty 🙂. I personally do know people who have selflessly not only paid their taxes but have then gone beyond that and paid for many people's education. Most people won't. And so, as most people won't contribute to the shaking tins, education is only a free service for those who wish to access the state's coercively funded services. Those who wish to use an alternative to the state have to pay for it themselves. And that is a big hard commitment which multiple people sacrifice a huge amount to do. Education isn't a luxury and shouldn't be subject to the coercive policies of the state. This is seriously weird. Chinahand has been on here for a couple of years longer than I have ( getting on for nearly twenty years). I would have said during that time if anyone deserves the title The Voice of Reason, then that is he ( I wish I’d never chosen that nomenclature for myself but that’s a different issue and I can’t do anything about it) His postings are generally without exception calm and reasoned, sometimes so philosophical that you have to read them a couple of times to get the gist. I certainly, like many others, respect his contributions. But this posting as so many of his contributions on this particular thread is so untypical not least for the sneering Eg “Aren’t most of us lucky that the answer is the state, coercively taking money off people with menaces, to pay for the little darlings.” Its just not like him. Edited August 29 by The Voice of Reason 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 14 minutes ago, Kopek said: But........ following the principle that 'those who can pay, should pay' means that higher taxes should be accepted by the privileged few??? I don't particularly disagree with this. It is the micro-management and the specific identification of education as a luxury to be taxed that honestly annoys me. I agree with progressive taxation, but tax the individual not an educational service. Examples abound - a charity which raises funds to bring someone from Eastern Europe to King Bills (it exists, but isn't shouted about) will now have to raise 20% more to do their good deed. A widowed grandad who has never been rich but has now downsized and is paying for his grand-daughter's education from the sale of the family home. This thread is full of sneers about range rovers and education being a luxury. Not everyone who pays for a child to be educated is rich, but now they will have to pay more. There is no need for this micro-management. Tax the rich at source and let the societal good that is educating people well for no profit remain without the government coercively intervening and pocketing 20% of the hard earned and already taxed cash. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 The Range Rover comment is mostly me, and maybe it is a form of sneering, I don't think there's a group of people I look down on more than Range Rover owners. Especially owners of shiny black ones. Why the fuck would you have a massive shiny black Range Rover in the Isle of Man? There is no reason, youre just a fucking twat. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 7 minutes ago, Chinahand said: I don't particularly disagree with this. It is the micro-management and the specific identification of education as a luxury to be taxed that honestly annoys me. I agree with progressive taxation, but tax the individual not an educational service. Examples abound - a charity which raises funds to bring someone from Eastern Europe to King Bills (it exists, but isn't shouted about) will now have to raise 20% more to do their good deed. A widowed grandad who has never been rich but has now downsized and is paying for his grand-daughter's education from the sale of the family home. This thread is full of sneers about range rovers and education being a luxury. Not everyone who pays for a child to be educated is rich, but now they will have to pay more. There is no need for this micro-management. Tax the rich at source and let the societal good that is educating people well for no profit remain without the government coercively intervening and pocketing 20% of the hard earned and already taxed cash. OK let’s forget about the VAT and other economic elements in all this. The reality, or the perception, is that paying for a public education gives the child an inbuilt advantage in later life. Is that fair being able to obtain such an advantage by being able to pay for it, by virtue of being wealthy, by virtue of inheritance, hard work, living like a pauper whatever? Private health. Being able to pay for it by any of the above circumstances can mean the difference between an individual living or dying, or various degrees of experiences in between. Is that also fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twitch Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 8 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Why the fuck would you have a massive shiny black Range Rover in the Isle of Man? There is no reason, youre just a fucking twat. ...or probably a drug dealer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 @The Voice of Reason I have always had a slight libertarian streek. The social contract between state and citizen is delicate and the state does coercively use its powers to take money off people. In the UK currently only about 50% of society contributes positively to government services. The rest do pay taxes, but get more back in benefits and the cost of services - health and education etc. I've repeatedly explained I'm in favour of progressive taxation and think it is right that government provides benefits and services to those in need. But are 50% of our society really in such need that they can't make a net contribution? I worry something has gone wrong, and the class warriors are getting increasingly greedy. This thread is full of class warriors sneering at hard working aspirational people, full of the attitude the state is the arbiter of society. That for me is totally putting the cart before the horse, and it has happened again and again in this thread, as I with increasing frustration have said. If my anger shows, its genuine. I hope it is self evident that I value education, that I take it seriously. I've brought my children up to take it seriously. To understand that they are privileged and so to work hard and contribute. My children's education is no luxury. I am an engaged tax payer - wanting the state to be efficient and not stifle with its mass. My point of principle stands. Providing an education is a social good. Public schools have provided skills for centuries which allow people to succeed, if more people could attend them it would be better. I am all for vouchers and bursaries and philanthropy to widen access. Use these positive ways to widen access. I am against the state deliberately making access more expensive and pocketing the result. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 17 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: The reality, or the perception, is that paying for a public education gives the child an inbuilt advantage in later life. Is that fair being able to obtain such an advantage by being able to pay for it, by virtue of being wealthy, by virtue of inheritance, hard work, living like a pauper whatever? Fair ... gawd ... that's a slippery word. My view is that there isn't such a divide between the state and private education that it is ever clear which path is best. People can receive a brilliant education via the state and a duff one from a private school. As state school is free the marginal cost of private education is huge and I've debated with many people what would give their children a better start in life - a private education or a deposit on a house etc. Life is uncertain, and definitely you need luck to get ahead, but I'm proud that our society does basically allow success to come from anywhere. There are many many paths to success and I don't think anyone could say a state education blocks you from any path, or a private one guarantees it. If that wasn't the case, I'd agree fairness would be an issue, but as it isn't I think fairness isn't particularly relevant. Not everyone is rich, not everyone is poor and the state provides huge opportunities to people to educate themselves and change their life circumstances. Given that I don't think there is anything wrong in reading your kids bedtime stories, teaching them about responsibility paying for them to have a tutor, or sending them to private school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 4 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Fair ... gawd ... that's a slippery word. My view is that there isn't such a divide between the state and private education that it is ever clear which path is best. People can receive a brilliant education via the state and a duff one from a private school. As state school is free the marginal cost of private education is huge and I've debated with many people what would give their children a better start in life - a private education or a deposit on a house etc. Life is uncertain, and definitely you need luck to get ahead, but I'm proud that our society does basically allow success to come from anywhere. There are many many paths to success and I don't think anyone could say a state education blocks you from any path, or a private one guarantees it. If that wasn't the case, I'd agree fairness would be an issue, but as it isn't I think fairness isn't particularly relevant. Not everyone is rich, not everyone is poor and the state provides huge opportunities to people to educate themselves and change their life circumstances. Given that I don't think there is anything wrong in reading your kids bedtime stories, teaching them about responsibility paying for them to have a tutor, or sending them to private school. Well there’s a lot to digest in that and it’s late in the evening. But my initial thought is that you would be hard pressed to find a parent on here who would disagree with you about there being nothing wrong with reading your kids bedtime stories ( that was one of my favourite parts of the day) and teaching them about responsibility. These two should be a given and are open to all and there’s no VAT to pay on them. But paying for a private tutor or sending them to private school is not an option for everyone. ( actually for most people) Whilst it’s not “wrong “ if you do have the means to do so then I think it is right that VAT is payable on those services Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: you would be hard pressed to find a parent on here who would disagree with you about there being nothing wrong with reading your kids bedtime stories Well yeah, but be careful ... the class warriors do say it is wrong. https://academic.oup.com/book/26717/chapter-abstract/195538409?redirectedFrom=fulltext Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted August 29 Author Share Posted August 29 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Well yeah, but be careful ... the class warriors do say it is wrong. https://academic.oup.com/book/26717/chapter-abstract/195538409?redirectedFrom=fulltext You spout a lot of ideology about education pre dating the state and it being wrong for the state to tax us and to provide education. You then go on to write off anyone who thinks we should tax private education ( the preserve of the wealthy) in exactly the same way we tax other goods and services as a socialist. It's not often I'm a moderate in a political argument. I don't think any of us will change your mind. I do think it will be interesting to see how government handle this one, and have no doubt it will have to be dragged out of them with an FOI if we find out at all. There a very apparent political will to kowtow to the rich on the island, it will be interesting to see how they sell any financial intervention to the increasing impoverished hoi polloi. Edited August 29 by A fool and his money..... State education Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.