.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
88
Australia - The Lucky Country - On borrowed money.
Just to clarify, free medical care is the ONLY reason you are living in Australia. Is that correct? If so, others may like to live out their twilight years in a place they are happy, on a daily basis, and deal with any possible medical issue that may arise if / when it comes. Any one of us could drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow. If that were to be the case, I would be glad I had been living in Thailand when it happened, and not in Australia, but each to their own. -
70
-
43
Looming Crisis: Private Schools Face Closures Amid VAT Hike
A discussion fuelled by the revenge/envy based politics of the vitriolic left. But feel free to continue with your class warfare, comrade. Even if that involves disrupting the education and stability of teenage children during their formative years.- 1
-
-
-
43
Looming Crisis: Private Schools Face Closures Amid VAT Hike
Thats link is a good insight into the financial interplay between private and state education sectors, however, the report misses a lot of nuance and misses the far-reaching implications on educational equity and public finances. 1) Disparity Between Private School Fees and State School Spending: The report notes that in 2022–23, average private school fees were £15,200, nearly 90% higher than state school spending per pupil, which was £8,000. This gap has more than doubled since 2010. Counterargument: While the nominal gap has increased, this comparison doesn't account for differences in services provided. Private schools often offer additional facilities, extracurricular activities, and lower student-to-teacher ratios, which contribute to higher fees. Therefore, a direct financial comparison may not fully capture the value proposition of private education. 2) Stability of Private School Attendance: Despite rising fees, the proportion of pupils attending private schools has remained around 6–7% over the past two decades. Counterargument: The steady percentage may mask underlying socioeconomic factors. Higher-income families might continue to afford private education, while middle-income families are increasingly priced out, potentially leading to greater educational inequality - the report also makes a huge assumption that the demographic for private schools is concentrated at the very top of the income distribution - I'd like to see the facts and real data here as the assumption that this will only impact those who can afford is very flawed IMO but fits perfectly with the governmental bias, in the hope they will receive the support along the lines of 'tax the rich' - the rich won't be impacted, the middle income and lower income demographics will be. 3) Revenue from Removing Tax Exemptions: The IFS estimates that eliminating tax exemptions, such as introducing VAT on private school fees, could generate approximately £1.6 billion annually in additional tax revenue. Counterargument: Implementing VAT on private school fees could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased financial strain on families, potential reductions in private school enrolments, and a subsequent rise in demand for state school places. This shift could offset the anticipated revenue gains due to the need for increased state funding to accommodate additional students. 4) Impact on State School Funding: A projected 3–7% decrease in private school attendance due to fee increases would necessitate an additional £100–300 million per year for state schools to accommodate the influx of students. Counterargument: The actual impact on state schools could be more significant than estimated. An influx of students may strain resources, affect class sizes, and potentially diminish the quality of education. Moreover, regional disparities in state school capacities could lead to uneven effects across the country. 5) Net Public Finance Impact: After accounting for additional state school funding needs, the net gain to public finances from removing tax exemptions is estimated at £1.3–1.5 billion per year, potentially allowing for a 2% increase in state school spending targeted at disadvantaged students. Counterargument: The projected net gain may be overly optimistic. Administrative costs associated with implementing and enforcing new tax policies, potential tax avoidance strategies by private schools or parents, and the economic impact of reduced disposable income for families could diminish the expected financial benefits. But, as highlighted earlier (copy and paste) >> If its one thing we've already learned from this government, its how readily they lie, and how quickly they will sell out the needy << will the labour government really re-invest that £1.6 BN into state schools or spend it elsewhere ? 6) Uncertainty and Potential Risks: The report acknowledges uncertainties, including potential reductions in labour supply and tax avoidance behaviours, which could affect the outcomes of removing tax exemptions. Counterargument: These uncertainties highlight the complexity of the issue. Policymakers should consider comprehensive impact assessments and explore alternative strategies to address educational funding disparities without unintended negative consequences. -
58
Woman Dies After Being Set on Fire in New York Subway
You snooze you loose. Keep your eyes open on the subway.- 1
-
-
13
Trump’s Opportunity to Redefine U.S.-Qatar Relations
It didn't, neither did your democrats feckless hitler messaging campaign. Ask yourself why democrats can be so moronic to play the hitler card. Thing about democracy, Trump is an American loving patriot who is all about preserving democracy unlike your America hating losing democrat party. The hitler card is one fine campaign strategy, wouldn't you say? LOL...it sure scored points for the feckless simpleton democrats during their pathetic $2B campaign of failures. FYI /context -
116
Insurrectionist Dems seek to Keep Trump from Office.
Not angry in the least, just correcting your false implication you wrote. Your group hates facts and when confront makes empty claims as thats all you have. you're gaslighting with the issue you tried to take out of context of what was written for your distorting agenda. If you cant discuss honestly then I'm done discussing this with you as its circular on your part.- 1
-
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now