1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

you need to explain how that is relevant to the skate I made.

Very but its no surprise you cant work it out

15 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

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

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.

9 minutes ago, sungod said:

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.

All ranks?

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

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All ranks?

 

I think safe to say all levels of rank utilize the system.

18 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

I think safe to say all levels of rank utilize the system.

I think it’s safe to say the utilization is not proportional to representation in the ranks.

 

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think it’s safe to say the utilization is not proportional to representation in the ranks.

 

Safe to say its used where needed.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Purchasing access to privilege through private schools is now subject to VAT.

 

It's just been demonstrated that privilege is not acquired in this way.You could make the case against but you just repeat the dogma.

 

It's a spiteful bit of class warfare to appease the left.Some people with closed minds will like this.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All ranks?

 

Yes all ranks, provided certain criteria (common to all ranks) are met such as families living together.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I assure you, I don’t need you to tell me about either.

That is because you believe you are always correct and ignore the truth/facts from others!

1 hour ago, 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.

 

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. 

28 minutes ago, 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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

33 minutes ago, 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. 

 

   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 .

44 minutes ago, 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. 

Speaking of Comrades, look who has just turned up!

 

 

7 minutes ago, 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 .

 

Yep, something else these dead beats didnt think off.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I frequently moved more than 3 or four hundred miles while my children were in school.

In the UK? It's not that big.

52 minutes ago, 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. 

 

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

 

 

5 hours ago, 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by BruceWayne

53 minutes ago, 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. 

 

   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 

15 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

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

 

 

 

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.

35 minutes ago, 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.

 

   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

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by Nick Carter icp

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

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

 

But if you don't tax $100 from someone, they're still $100 better off

- capiche?

1 minute ago, BruceWayne said:

 

But if you don't tax $100 from someone, they're still $100 better off

- capiche?

 

  The claim was that the giver received something , received a subsidiary.

Not giving money doesn't mean that you received money from the person that you didn't give it to 

2 minutes ago, 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

 

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. 

Just now, 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. 

“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

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

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

 

  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 🙂

15 minutes ago, 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.

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

 off topic inflammatory post removed @BruceWayne

3 minutes ago, 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

 

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

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

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

My pleasure, your denial of the facts is amusing