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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

?

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.

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.

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.

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?

^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.

Doodledog if spending on education, health etc is not paid for by tax, and if governments can create as much money as they like, why don't they create enough to give everyone good healthcare, education and facilities in perpetuity? Surely that would be enough of a vote-winner to keep whoever did it in power forever?

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

Maybe I have no logic Maizie (and DaisyAnne) because I couldn't follow the blue water logic at all.

Never mind the blue water, then, GagaJo. Just think about my original question

If I may ask a question back - if spending on education, health etc is not paid for by tax, and if governments can create as much money as they like, why don't they create enough to give everyone good healthcare, education and facilities in perpetuity? Surely that would be enough of a vote-winner to keep whoever did it in power forever?

I think that the answer to that is that it is an ideological political decision which is supported by people who are largely ignorant of the state's power to create money or people who want to implement their 'small state' ideology by pretending that the 'household budget' model is correct.

Look at the odium that was poured on Labour spending proposals at the 2019 GE by tories and the media. Yet the Johnson government manged to find £billions to spend during the covid crisis and the chancellor has just announced a massive increase in government spending (though, sadly, targeted at the wealthy). It's all 'created' money.

Until the voters can be got to realise that the 'household budget' analogy is a lie and that governments can spend on whatever they like because they can create the money, we will never get sound political choices made because voters are scared off by the 'How are you going to pay for it?' question (and the deeply held belief that Labour are financially irresponsible)

Obviously it's not just a simple matter of printing money ad lib. There are practical constraints and measures that can be taken to prevent hyperinflation. Taxation is a prime measure as it takes excess money out of the economy. But it doesn't fund spending.

Joseanne

Im loving this thread.
We've ridiculed the children at fee paying schools, we've bashed the parents for the choice they've made, we've now started on the teachers employed in the independent sector...........

I didn't see anyone ridiculing children. They are pawns in all of this.

As for private sector teachers... I speak from what I see. Tiny sample though, so probably not representative at all.

Maybe I have no logic Maizie (and DaisyAnne) because I couldn't follow the blue water logic at all.

If the state creates the money that goes into the economy why would it want to take it back from us in order to pay for anything when it can (and does) just pay direct?

This feels a bit like a public viva, but I'll bite. Is it (a) an attempt at redistribution? Or, depending on your political viewpoint, (b) an attempt to appear to be redistributing money fairly, or (c) to convince people that you are doing well by them by cutting a tiny bit off personal tax whilst ignoring tax loopholes and tax avoidance that benefit the rich?

If I may ask a question back - if spending on education, health etc is not paid for by tax, and if governments can create as much money as they like, why don't they create enough to give everyone good healthcare, education and facilities in perpetuity? Surely that would be enough of a vote-winner to keep whoever did it in power forever?

We need a proper thread on this, DaisyAnne.

It would probably sink like a stone into your blue water, though

MaizieD

^I found a definition: What is taxpayers money used for UK?^
"For centuries taxes have been an important fact of national life. Without them it would be impossible to pay for the country's defence services, its health, welfare and social services, its schools and universities, and its transport systems."

You can find as many definitions as you like, Norah. I expect they will all say much the same thing, but they are not correct.

Taxation has a number of functions but it is not to finance spending.

Here's some reading for you that explains it all. I'm afraid that it can't be explained in a short paragraph.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

gimms.org.uk/2019/02/10/uk-government-spending-taxation-bank-lending/

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/07/25/the-treasury-admit-that-tax-does-not-fund-government-spending-as-modern-monetary-theory-suggests/

I'll try the question that I've been asking on other threads but getting no response to.

The state, / via the Bank of England and the banking system, is the sole creator and issuer of money in the UK.

If the state creates the money that goes into the economy *why would it want to take it back from us in order to pay for anything when it can (and does) just pay direct?*

I still do not know enough about this view on the economy. I believe it does reflect our modern economics better than the view from when we had the Gold Standard.

I was trying to explain it to a friend the other day. I ended up calling currency "blue water" fed into the system by the government. It continues to move around the economy or is withdrawn or added to by the government.

I then explained that sometimes we give the blue water other names to clarify (or occasionally confuse) the average punter like me. So, you might call some of it "earnings blue water", "taxes blue water" or "exports blue water". These quantities of "blue water" move in and out of the economy - I should have mentioned "savings blue water" - but we can see, by using the "blue water" instead of currency, that we did not personally create it. It is all currency the government choses to feed into the system (to create) or not.

I then looked up at my friend and realised how childishly she may have thought I was treating her. However, I was not doing it for her understanding but for my own. I did decide it was time I stopped with the "blue water" though.

As always on this, I'm happy to receive a correction, addition, or explanation about why I am entirely wrong.

Im loving this thread.
We've ridiculed the children at fee paying schools, we've bashed the parents for the choice they've made, we've now started on the teachers employed in the independent sector...........

GagaJo

*If the state creates the money that goes into the economy why would it want to take it back from us in order to pay for anything when it can (and does) just pay direct?*

That is too much for my feeble brain to be about to analyse MD. Maths is hard for me. And to mix maths AND economics/finance. I'd like to see the replies of others tho.

I would have thought it was a perfectly straightforward question to answer. It requires no maths or economic knowledge. Just some logic.

If the state creates the money that goes into the economy why would it want to take it back from us in order to pay for anything when it can (and does) just pay direct?

That is too much for my feeble brain to be about to analyse MD. Maths is hard for me. And to mix maths AND economics/finance. I'd like to see the replies of others tho.

I found a definition: What is taxpayers money used for UK?
"For centuries taxes have been an important fact of national life. Without them it would be impossible to pay for the country's defence services, its health, welfare and social services, its schools and universities, and its transport systems."

You can find as many definitions as you like, Norah. I expect they will all say much the same thing, but they are not correct.

Taxation has a number of functions but it is not to finance spending.

Here's some reading for you that explains it all. I'm afraid that it can't be explained in a short paragraph.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

gimms.org.uk/2019/02/10/uk-government-spending-taxation-bank-lending/

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/07/25/the-treasury-admit-that-tax-does-not-fund-government-spending-as-modern-monetary-theory-suggests/

I'll try the question that I've been asking on other threads but getting no response to.

The state, / via the Bank of England and the banking system, is the sole creator and issuer of money in the UK.

If the state creates the money that goes into the economy why would it want to take it back from us in order to pay for anything when it can (and does) just pay direct?

Mollygo

And I have seen it the other way round nanna8. Both very impressive at interview. One who thought they could have a second job, with disastrous results for his teaching and one who walked the walk and talked the talk but couldn’t teach. Both were taken up by private schools. I have no idea how long they kept the man, but I’m still in touch with the woman and she’s still there.

Not often we agree Mollygo. But I've also seen this.

Countless numbers of state school teachers forced out of their school, only to go into a private school and remain there. I've got at least 5 contacts that have done this. One is doddery to say the least! Another (an English teacher) has a somewhat tenuous grasp of her subject and made a massive screw up with instructions for her students for their GCSEs. Still in the school, happy as a lark. In any state school she'd have been on a capability procedure (supposedly support, but actually a way to push someone out) and a disciplinary. Management covered up the mistakes for her.

nanna8

I don’t know if it is the same in the UK but with the private schools here poor teachers are quickly moved on. That does not seem to happen in the public schools. I have personal experience of this and that is just one of the reasons many of us will scrimp and save to put our children through the private school system. We used to coach children from the local public school in English and maths because the teaching was very poor and the kids wanted to pass their exams and get into uni. Not just that particular school ,either.

Teachers are hounded out of state schools. The bullying is like nothing I've ever seen before. There is zero chance of a bad teacher staying in a state school these days.

I'm in an online teachers group and it is horrifying how teachers are treated. I won't go into it here, but suffice to say, if you're not up to working a 70+ hour week as a state school teacher, you'll be forced out within a year.

Good point mollygo. I only have experience of our local schools here. Money here talks from that point of view, sadly.