How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

Ok, humour me?

I accept that Thatcher's household budget analogy was false, and I do know that the 'pay it back' mantra is a lie; but if tax doesn't fund spending, what does? And if we all stopped paying tax, what would happen? And what would the long-term impact be if we had too much money in the economy?

Also, why do all parties perpetuate an untruth? Wouldn't it make sense for someone to point out the naked emperor?

MaizieD

^Brilliant, pay my taxes and government will create money paying the expenses of society. Just accounting really, debits and credits.*

The government will still tax you. Tax has a number of useful functions; among which is reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy. It just doesn't fund government spending.

I was agreeing. I pay my taxes. Government spends.

I certainly hope state schooling is paid for, without closing fee paid schools.

Fee paid schooling has no impact on state school funding.

Doodledog

Ok, humour me?

I accept that Thatcher's household budget analogy was false, and I do know that the 'pay it back' mantra is a lie; but if tax doesn't fund spending, what does? And if we all stopped paying tax, what would happen? And what would the long-term impact be if we had too much money in the economy?

Also, why do all parties perpetuate an untruth? Wouldn't it make sense for someone to point out the naked emperor?

Yes, it does sound like one person's reasoning against another.
And I do think I know whose reasoning that is (Richard Murphy?)

I still think if our tax money goes towards reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy then it is being spent on public services.

Maybe I'll ask my DN, she will explain it all from a B of E viewpoint.

Norah

MaizieD

^Brilliant, pay my taxes and government will create money paying the expenses of society. Just accounting really, debits and credits.*

The government will still tax you. Tax has a number of useful functions; among which is reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy. It just doesn't fund government spending.

I was agreeing. I pay my taxes. Government spends.

I certainly hope state schooling is paid for, without closing fee paid schools.

Fee paid schooling has no impact on state school funding.

But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools.

But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools

How are they to do that, exactly, unless they are in government?

?

growstuff

Norah

MaizieD

^Brilliant, pay my taxes and government will create money paying the expenses of society. Just accounting really, debits and credits.*

The government will still tax you. Tax has a number of useful functions; among which is reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy. It just doesn't fund government spending.

I was agreeing. I pay my taxes. Government spends.

I certainly hope state schooling is paid for, without closing fee paid schools.

Fee paid schooling has no impact on state school funding.

But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools.

If taxes don't fund spending (as I repeatedly read) then what does increase funding for state schools? And what has any of that to do with our spending on GC and GGC at fee based schools? We're not in charge of funding state schools, we only pay lots of taxes to government - government is in charge of state schools.

Callistemon21

^But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools^

How are they to do that, exactly, unless they are in government?

?

We have used fee paying schools along with state schools.

I have absolutely no influence regarding funding for state schools.

Callistemon21

^But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools^

How are they to do that, exactly, unless they are in government?

?

I don't know why you're excluding those in government. What about all those in local government and people who vote (all of us) who vote for a party based on policies? Why would they vote for a political party which prioritises state schools, when they can afford to send their children to independent schools?

GrannyGravy13

Callistemon21

But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools

How are they to do that, exactly, unless they are in government?

?

We have used fee paying schools along with state schools.

I have absolutely no influence regarding funding for state schools.

Yes, you do. You've voted for a political party which supports independent schools by, for example, continuing their charitable status.

Norah

growstuff

Norah

MaizieD

^Brilliant, pay my taxes and government will create money paying the expenses of society. Just accounting really, debits and credits.*

The government will still tax you. Tax has a number of useful functions; among which is reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy. It just doesn't fund government spending.

I was agreeing. I pay my taxes. Government spends.

I certainly hope state schooling is paid for, without closing fee paid schools.

Fee paid schooling has no impact on state school funding.

But it does because those with money and power who send their children to independent schools have no incentive to increase funding for state schools.

If taxes don't fund spending (as I repeatedly read) then what does increase funding for state schools? And what has any of that to do with our spending on GC and GGC at fee based schools? We're not in charge of funding state schools, we only pay lots of taxes to government - government is in charge of state schools.

Yes, government is in charge of funding and funding for state schools has been cut over the last 12 years, especially in more deprived areas. You have a vote and could choose to vote for political parties at national and local levels which increase funding.

Up till 2010, the Labour Government I voted for also allowed private schools to have charitable status, although from 2006 they had to show they were creating a public benefit.
If they don’t remove charitable status when they get in next time, perhaps they should consider giving all schools charitable status.

You have a vote and could choose to vote for political parties at national and local levels which increase funding.

And who says I don't?
It's puzzling though, that our Tory MP sends his DC to state schools.

If the number of people willing to pay for education directly increases, then the government has no incentive to increase spending on state education. They can maintain it at a low and even a falling level, because the thinking is that those who can pay for education will do so. It starts with oboe lessons; those who want oboe lessons can pay for it. Fair enough. But what about French? or Physics? When does it stop?

Therefore, the incentive for the government is to save money by not spending it on state education because they think people who really want it will pay for it. But some people can't pay for it. They will never be able to pay for it.

Hence, the existence of fee-paying schools undermines the principle of free education for all.

I would have thought that was obvious. So all those saying how they are being so helpful by freeing up places in the state sector, please realise that the exact opposite is true.

Callistemon21

^You have a vote and could choose to vote for political parties at national and local levels which increase funding^.

And who says I don't?
It's puzzling though, that our Tory MP sends his DC to state schools.

Why's it puzzling? You're in Wales and you've always written that there's a different tradition. If I were a Tory MP, I'd make a point of sending my children to a state school (provided it's a good one) just to show I'm "one of the people".

Isn't it because if we just pretend there is infinite money Maizie, that that is what creates inflation?

See. I wasn't being awkward about my lack of logic. I honestly don't understand.

Latest figures (curtesy of Google) show 6.5% of school age children attend fee paying schools.

A really small proportion.

GrannyGravy13

Latest figures (curtesy of Google) show 6.5% of school age children attend fee paying schools.

A really small proportion.

So?

Here's a stat:

While only seven per cent of pupils in England are educated in private school, a new analysis by the Sutton Trust published today shows privately educated alumni made up 39 per cent of the cabinet in spring this year, 59 per cent of permanent secretaries in the civil service and two-thirds of senior judges.

schoolsweek.co.uk/private-schools-need-phasing-out-and-heres-how-it-can-be-done/

There really are no defensible reasons for the existence of fee-paying schools its just that the parents who use them feel entitled to buy advantage. We just need to acknowledge that. ??

Sorry volver it comes down to freedom of choice, to deny folks of that I find indefensible.

Having money gives you more choices with everything, it doesn't mean it was right for our current government to underfund education and healthcare which affects those with less money the most.

JaneJudge

Having money gives you more choices with everything, it doesn't mean it was right for our current government to underfund education and healthcare which affects those with less money the most.

I agree with that JaneJudge

People sending their children to state schools and using NHS instead of private will not help the poorest in society.

GrannyGravy13

JaneJudge
Having money gives you more choices with everything, it doesn't mean it was right for our current government to underfund education and healthcare which affects those with less money the most.
I agree with that JaneJudge

People sending their children to state schools and using NHS instead of private will not help the poorest in society.
I agree too.

GrannyGravy13

Sorry volver it comes down to freedom of choice, to deny folks of that I find indefensible.

And to deny folks a fair crack of the whip?

To deny people all the advantages of life when others can have them because their parents are fortunate enough to have a bit of money?

"Freedom of choice" trumps all that does it? But only if you have money, clearly. No freedom of choice for those on Universal Credit.

And I don't mean fancy clothes and oboe lessons, I mean an opportunity to fulfil one's potential. I guess there are things that I find indefensible that just aren't that important to other people.

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

To deny people all the advantages of life when others can have them because their parents are fortunate enough to have a bit of money?

And I don't mean fancy clothes and oboe lessons, I mean an opportunity to fulfil one's potential. I guess there are things that I find indefensible that just aren't that important to other people

Why do you keep banging that same drum (or playing the same note over and over on the oboe)?

The whole point of what everyone is saying is that state education should be funded well enough so that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential.

No-one is stating otherwise. Everyone thinks it is important.

If you can't see that there is no way of convincing you.

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I did explain it. I'm sorry that you didn't understand it agree with it.

And I am yet to be convinced that one's parents' financial situation is a good indicator of how one might benefit from a good education.