What you are saying is, there is a reason to discourage people to give their children worse education justs because they can afford it? Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford. Some people can obviously afford the top of healthcare by paying extra. So what you are saying is: abolish being rich. But where do incebtives come from? Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today’s well fed members of society do that, but they should. Nothing wrong with eating first, but they have to do their part, which they don’t. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won’t change that or significantly impact public school funding. They have you fight other groups in society so you won’t take revenge on the bad CEOs in this world that eat first.
Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford.
Yes this is true. And how do we get everybody access to as much as possible? Provide good quality services for free to everyone. Not by encouraging a tiny fraction of of people that private schools are vastly better then public ones.
. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won’t change that or significantly impact public school funding.
VAT, which I believe this is what they where exempt from, is 20%, not 2%. It might still be a small amount overall, but why should that matter? Any more money towards public education is a benefit. I would like to see other efforts to increase that further from other areas but I am not going to be against this just because it is not a big enough difference.
So what you are saying is: abolish being rich.
Ultra super rich, yes. They don’t need all that money and it could be used to better the lives of a lot more people. The wealth gap increasing does not improve the lives of people, just they few that are on top.
Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today’s well fed members of society do that, but they should.
I mean yeah? That is my point. They should but they don’t. So what benefit do they give us? There has been a big push for trickle down economics for a long time… but it does not work. All we have seen is an increased wealth gap and more people getting into poverty. We need to start taxing the rich and actually funnel that money to the people that need it - defend the group as a whole, which they are failing to do currently.
Just to say it again. I agree with taxing the rich. I don’ta agree where you raise a minuscule amount of taxes from 501c private schools. Let’s call for a 30% wealth tax so we get a wealth ceiling.
I think running my own company for 10 years kinda qualifies me to know how taxing vat differences on a balance sheet works. Consumers usually see only the Vat added…
What you are saying is, there is a reason to discourage people to give their children worse education justs because they can afford it? Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford. Some people can obviously afford the top of healthcare by paying extra. So what you are saying is: abolish being rich. But where do incebtives come from? Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today’s well fed members of society do that, but they should. Nothing wrong with eating first, but they have to do their part, which they don’t. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won’t change that or significantly impact public school funding. They have you fight other groups in society so you won’t take revenge on the bad CEOs in this world that eat first.
Yes this is true. And how do we get everybody access to as much as possible? Provide good quality services for free to everyone. Not by encouraging a tiny fraction of of people that private schools are vastly better then public ones.
VAT, which I believe this is what they where exempt from, is 20%, not 2%. It might still be a small amount overall, but why should that matter? Any more money towards public education is a benefit. I would like to see other efforts to increase that further from other areas but I am not going to be against this just because it is not a big enough difference.
Ultra super rich, yes. They don’t need all that money and it could be used to better the lives of a lot more people. The wealth gap increasing does not improve the lives of people, just they few that are on top.
I mean yeah? That is my point. They should but they don’t. So what benefit do they give us? There has been a big push for trickle down economics for a long time… but it does not work. All we have seen is an increased wealth gap and more people getting into poverty. We need to start taxing the rich and actually funnel that money to the people that need it - defend the group as a whole, which they are failing to do currently.
Just to say it again. I agree with taxing the rich. I don’ta agree where you raise a minuscule amount of taxes from 501c private schools. Let’s call for a 30% wealth tax so we get a wealth ceiling.
501c? What do US tax orgs have to do with UK education?
Nonprofit. Don’t know how they are called in the UK, but they usually work the same everywhere.
Any chance that if you don’t even know the basis by which they’re free of VAT you might not be well enough informed to be touting an opinion on it?
What do you mean? Obviously knowledge about the usa applies everywhere and makes you informed enough to comment on any country’s systems.
I think running my own company for 10 years kinda qualifies me to know how taxing vat differences on a balance sheet works. Consumers usually see only the Vat added…
It probably does, it’s just not relevant to what we’re talking about.
It’s estimated at over a billion pounds, which isn’t insignificant at all in UK terms.