Jump to content

Retention Crisis in UK Armed Forces as Families Warn of Impact from VAT on Private Schools


Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 11/11/2024 at 12:15 PM, BangkokReady said:

 

Why does all this mean they have to go to private schools and cannot go to state schools?

Expand  

Quite alot of military families have their kids in boarding as the parents may have to deploy overseas quickly and for long periods of time.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 4:19 AM, sungod said:

I bet Comrade Abbott is pleased her party didn't impose VAT on private schools as her son went through the private system.

Expand  

 

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services. 

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 5:38 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services. 

Expand  

 

 

Not paying VAT on something doesn't mean you are being subsidized. The government are not paying for this, they just aren't taxing it.

 

Like children's clothing. 

 

If I don't steal from you, you don't need to thank me. It's the default position. 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 5:38 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services. 

Expand  

 

   Now the tax payer  will have to pay to educate the Children as they will be attending state schools and the tax payer may have to fund the unemployed teachers unemployment benefit as well .

Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 5:38 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services. 

Expand  

Speaking of Comrades, look who has just turned up!

 

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 6:16 AM, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Now the tax payer  will have to pay to educate the Children as they will be attending state schools and the tax payer may have to fund the unemployed teachers unemployment benefit as well .

Expand  

 

Yep, something else these dead beats didnt think off.

Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 5:38 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services. 

Expand  

 

As others have pointed out and you find hard to grasp is no one was subsidizing anything.

 

 

Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 1:23 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

What do you not understand about "the forces are not allowed to stop the illegals unless the government tells them to". Take it up with your MP.

Expand  

 

What part of

"Squaddies are parasites sucking the blood of UK Taxpayers while whinging they're not getting enough"

do you not understand?

 

Fannying around playing action man and adding ZERO VALUE for taxpayers.

 

What's the value of UK 'armed forces' if they can't even stop 10s of thousands of foreign Orcs invading every week on dinghys?:

 

ZERO VALUE

 

"i caNT do nuFfIn aBOut dinGhies bUt wiLL kiLl aNywUN pOllaTITioNs tELl mE tO"

 

Should get proper jobs or just go on the dole like the rest of the bloodsuckers - at least that'd be a more honest living.

 

No better than Nazi concentration camp guards really -

I'm sure you'll be cheering on the 'service men' (aka war pigs) when they blow up up Iran too woncha?

https://thinkingcoalition.substack.com/p/here-comes-the-next-forever-war

 

As for going to an MP - I'd rather cut out the middleman.

 

If you can't explain why others should pay for you/them and feel sorry for you/them MAN UP and just admit it.

 

 

 

  • Heart-broken 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 5:38 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services. 

Expand  

 

   The Parents already pay tax to educate their children , they are probably in the 40 % tax bracket and that tax goes to fund state schools . It funds state schools and the children don't attend the state school .

   So those parents were subsiding the poorer kids state education .

As they paid tax and their kids didn't attend state school , they should have got a tax reduction  , not be charged VAT tax again 

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 6:33 AM, sungod said:

 

As others have pointed out and you find hard to grasp is no one was subsidizing anything.

 

 

Expand  

 

I suggest that it is you who is among those hard of understanding. By being exempt from vat, these private businesses were receiving a subsidy.

  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 6:50 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

I suggest that it is you who is among those hard of understanding. By being exempt from vat, these private businesses were receiving a subsidy.

Expand  

 

   How much money did they receive ?

The answers seems to be Zero , they didn't receive anything .

They didn't give money in VAT , not giving something isn't receiving something .

   If you don't give $100 to a beggar , that doesn't mean that the beggar gave YOU $100

  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 6:56 AM, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   How much money did they receive ?

Then answers seems to be Zero , they didn't receive anything .

They didn't give money in VAT , not giving something isn't receiving something .

   If you don't give $100 to a beggar , that doesn't mean that the beggar gave YOU $100

Expand  

 

You highlight, precisely, the very thing that you and so many others here fail to understand. Subsidies don't need to take the form of one party receiving money from another.

 

By not imposing a standard tariff on one particular party, the exempt party is, in effect, subsidised by the government, thus by the taxpayer. 

Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 7:02 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

You highlight, precisely, the very thing that you and so many others here fail to understand. Subsidies don't need to take the form of one party receiving money from another.

 

By not imposing a standard tariff on one particular party, the exempt party is, in effect, subsidised by the government, thus by the taxpayer. 

Expand  

“A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer.” Walz v.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2024/03/tax-exemption-might-not-be-a-subsidy-according-to-fourth-circuit.html

  • Like 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 7:02 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

You highlight, precisely, the very thing that you and so many others here fail to understand.

Expand  

 

  I do understand , I understood it the first time you said it .

I understood the first time and I replied to it .

You seem to be ignoring my reply and just saying the same thing again 🙂

Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 6:50 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

I suggest that it is you who is among those hard of understanding. By being exempt from vat, these private businesses were receiving a subsidy.

Expand  

Welcome to the Left Wing school of economics- completely clueless.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2024 at 7:03 AM, Bkk Brian said:

“A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer.” Walz v.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2024/03/tax-exemption-might-not-be-a-subsidy-according-to-fourth-circuit.html

Expand  

 

Well done - it's just a pity that the title of the article can't even back up Mr Walz's assertion with confidence. 

  • Agree 1

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...