Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

The link reminds me of four close friends sent off to private schools. They all deeply regret this. Two lawyers, teacher, journalist. They still feel damaged

Yes

Have you actually read the link?

Aveline

Oh well if some Guardian journalist posing as an 'agony aunt' disagrees that must be a universally true fact!

Don't be silly. I'm just providing some info of someone who has suffered from the knowledge of his parents' sacrifices. The journalist has addressed hundreds of problems submitted by readers.

Oh well if some Guardian journalist posing as an 'agony aunt' disagrees that must be a universally true fact!

Dinahmo

For those of you who think it's OK or a good idea for parents to scrimp and scrape in order to to pay school fees. I'm sure that the adult child who asked the question of the "Agony Aunt" does not agree with you.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jun/21/my-working-class-dad-sent-me-to-private-school-now-i-feel-that-ive-failed-him

That’s very sad

For those of you who think it's OK or a good idea for parents to scrimp and scrape in order to to pay school fees. I'm sure that the adult child who asked the question of the "Agony Aunt" does not agree with you.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jun/21/my-working-class-dad-sent-me-to-private-school-now-i-feel-that-ive-failed-him

Doodledog

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea that we should all work. What people are disagreeing with is that education for its own sake is a bad idea, or that education should be about earning a living and benefiting the nation.

Everyone needs to earn a living, but everyone should also be able to pursue an education that allows them to reach their potential, whether or not it leads directly to a job, or a 'graduate job', whatever that may be.

If Elegran's post has made your case, I'm not sure what your case is, as you seem to me to be saying very different things.

I disagree. I don't believe we all need to work for money. Some people just work in/around their homes - if they can afford such, who is to say they must be in paid work? Pursuing education is lovely as well.

Yes you are quite correct Monica, but anything above taxation has to be accounted for either as Borrowing or QE. As I stated above in my opinion Labour is going to have a good working majority after the election, the policies are moderate, if they decide to increase borrowing modestly that’s not a problem.

Finance markets have written in a Labour win and are content, sterling is stable, baring anything unexpected, the economy will improve.

Dont compare post WW2 with todays economy, the post war recovery was manufacturing, austerity, and high taxation, wether Keynes had anything to do with that I have no idea

I said to him "If YOU have stated your case finally and for the last time" because he used the word "fnally" in his post. I wasn't making his case for him.

I don’t understand how Elegran has made David’s case either.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea that we should all work. What people are disagreeing with is that education for its own sake is a bad idea, or that education should be about earning a living and benefiting the nation.

Everyone needs to earn a living, but everyone should also be able to pursue an education that allows them to reach their potential, whether or not it leads directly to a job, or a 'graduate job', whatever that may be.

If Elegran's post has made your case, I'm not sure what your case is, as you seem to me to be saying very different things.

Elegran

Finally, David49 the whole nation benefits when all its population have a wider range of knowledge and interests than their job demands, and all the ways in which they can relax from their labours with the help of the music, art, theatre, crafts, sport, books, and exploration of other cultures and religions and personal family trees. their mental health is better, and as a result their physical health and their standard of work is better, and the time they take of work is less..

This conversation is going nowhere, so if you to have stated your case finally and for the last time, we can both move on to more productive topics, as can the other posters caught up in the exchange.

You have just made my case, I am criticizing the existing system and want it improved

It’s obvious mental health is worse, the NHS services are worse, water quality is worse, poverty has increased, children roam around in gangs knifing each other.

You say we should have more of the same, I say we should ALL work harder to pay for the services we all want.

Glorianny I nearly quoted that too, but I decided that in this case it was also men as well as women.

During my working life I met many people who were in high powered jobs and many who weren't.

The former were often so engrossed with their careers (mainly men back in the 70s and 80s) that they had very few interests outside of work.

Some of the latter were disappointed that they had not succeeded as well as they might.

Some of my female friends who had succeeded in their chosen career found it difficult after retirement because work was very important in their lives. After a year or two of acclimatisation they began to enjoy their retirement, includng the benefits that their high pensions brought.

Personally I was never particularly ambitious. I fell into accountancy in my mid 20s and found that I enjoyed it. I worked for very small and one of the top 3 partnerships.

The ethos in the big firms was "up or out" but luckily I was in a department that wanted and needed continuity. This came to an end when we decided to move out of London and the department for which I worked decided to move too, but in a different direction.

Work after that was not so good but I had had some clients for several years and expanded my own practice over a period of time. In the meantime I had to get job which I hated. My New Year's resolution was to enjoy life. Which we did and still do apart now from health constraints.

I was thinking how regressive some people's thoughts are on this. My mother was raised in an age when education for women was considered a waste of money by some. She left school at 14 but believed passionately in education and learning and quoted something her father (a largely self educated docker) had told her "Educate a woman and you educate a whole family."
I googled it and it has been attributed to many different people. One source is an African proverb which adds the word "nation" after family.

I do find it extraordinary that anyone could question the value of education and reduce it completely to only its monetary value.

FYI - there seems to be some confusion. the following is frm HMRC's website.

Inheritance Tax is a tax on the estate (the property, money and possessions) of someone who’s died.

There’s normally no Inheritance Tax to pay if either:

the value of your estate is below the £325,000 threshold
you leave everything above the £325,000 threshold to your spouse, civil partner, a charity or a community amateur sports club

You may still need to report the estate’s value even if it’s below the threshold.

If you give away your home to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren your threshold can increase to £500,000.

If you’re married or in a civil partnership and your estate is worth less than your threshold, any unused threshold can be added to your partner’s threshold when you die.

You can pass a home to your husband, wife or civil partner when you die. There’s no Inheritance Tax to pay if you do this.

If you leave the home to another person in your will, it counts towards the value of the estate.

If you own your home (or a share in it) your tax-free threshold can increase to £500,000 if:

you leave it to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren
your estate is worth less than £2 million

Giving away a home before you die

There’s normally no Inheritance Tax to pay if you move out and live for another 7 years.

Finally, David49 the whole nation benefits when all its population have a wider range of knowledge and interests than their job demands, and all the ways in which they can relax from their labours with the help of the music, art, theatre, crafts, sport, books, and exploration of other cultures and religions and personal family trees. their mental health is better, and as a result their physical health and their standard of work is better, and the time they take of work is less..

This conversation is going nowhere, so if you to have stated your case finally and for the last time, we can both move on to more productive topics, as can the other posters caught up in the exchange.

Finally I profoundly disagree with education for its own sake, it should be about earning a living and benefiting the nation, the UK has certainly failed in the latter.
This is where we (if I may speak for others) disagree with you. I don't think the UK has 'failed', as I don't see the primary motive of education in the same way as you do. I do believe that everyone should contribute to society as a whole, but I think that can happen in many ways. An artist (or dancer, poet, playwright or author) may never earn much, but their contribution can be more valuable than that of a businessman (or woman) who earns a lot but only contributes to his or her own family.

Only educating people to the level 'needed' by their work is condemning a lot of people to a life in which they work for low wages, as they won't have the skills to negotiate higher ones, and there will always be someone willing to take their place. It is also preventing real competition when it comes to ideas and invention, if some jobs are ring-fenced as 'graduate jobs'. I think that this is bad for the nation, which could benefit from a bigger pool from which to draw talent.

I’m afraid not. A graduate has to be exceptional and to have obtained at least a 2:1 from a good university to even get an interview, other than with a small provincial firm where they may receive a mediocre training and a poor salary. They can forget the Bar.

No it isn’t is it GSM?

I wonder how many do their homework about their hoped-for career before deciding on a university course? The law is a hugely oversubscribed profession and very competitive, yet so many think having a law degree from any old university is their key to riches. It isn’t.

Germanshepherdsmum

I heard that the Conservatives have put Labour on the spot as regards IHT relief on agricultural land passed to the next generation. They will have to either confirm or deny - if they refuse to comment it’s reasonable to assume that’s one of the ‘tax loopholes’ they have their eyes on. So if agricultural relief goes, what of relief for other business assets?

If one believes current food costs are high - Labour won't be causing farm prices, passed on to consumer level - to decline.

Like many on this site my final year was mid 1960s when around 10% went to university the rest of us got a job and everyone did get a job, further education was day release with technical college for whatever you decide to do, after that full time courses for higher levels.

Life is different now but it’s no more difficult I cope just fine with new technology and new regulation, maybe I don’t like it, but tick the boxes nevertheless.

The outcome for many children is considerably worse now I know many graduates that cannot find the job they want including my own family, it’s not surprising that mental health is so poor.

Finally I profoundly disagree with education for its own sake, it should be about earning a living and benefiting the nation, the UK has certainly failed in the latter.

It’s not about education for educations sake it’s about paying the rent, there is plenty of time for culture and the arts after you can pay the rent

Culture and the Arts don't arrive fully formed. Someone has to produce them, and if we refuse to educate people do do that we either stagnate culturally, or leave the transmission of ideas, beauty and entertainment to those who don't need to pay the rent.

As for their being 'not enough jobs', my understanding is that many employers struggle to fill vacancies.