If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And you study economics?
I don't think so. I never heard such a load of simplistic shite in my life.
I do not see how you can deny that if there were no private schools this would place a larger tax burden on society and that this would hurt the poor.
Do you deny that incredibly obvious fact?
It's the same as saying I would hurt the poor by having children. A non-point.
Can you actually see links between things or not?
I assume then that you do not deny the truth of what I was saying.
If you admit then that private schools do have a benefit for poorer people then you must see that the 'moral' issue of teaching in such schools is not so cut and dried as you would have it.......
You make no meaningful point by arguing that rich people are doing the world a favour by paying their taxes, like they bloody should be doing anyway.
Private schooling has no benefit at all for those on lower incomes. The notional- and it is only notional- "benefit" of having a few less children in the state sector is more than outweighed by the damage caused by removing access to the best teachers and facilities from those from lower incomes.
The abolition of private schools, and the confiscation of private school property, would more than offset the "burden" of having them in the state sector.
The benefit I have pointed out is far more immediately real and direct than the disadvantages you are talking about.
Removing access to best teachers would need evidence
Removing access to better facilities doesn't make any sense.
So is the teachers thing the only disadvantage? It may be true but would the appropriate measure be to abolish private schols, with all the costs that would incur?
maybe a mandatory period in the state sector in return for support through higher education may be more appropriate.....
I know what the "benefit" you mean is- the rich parents are paying tax but not using the school. But I pay tax without using the school, therefore if I had kids they would be a "burden" on the system too. Therefore your point is nonsensical- it can only make sense if you are arguing only rich people should have kids, as they can afford to not "burden" the state system with them.
In addition to this, the tax revenues private schools deprive the country due to their charitable status more than override the "benefit" of not having the children in the state sector. First thing I would do is get rid of their charitable status, and make them pay their way like every other business has to.
Private schools have better teachers and better facilities than state schools, because they have the resources to fund them, because to get into the schools you need to be rich or Stephen Hawking (I would have said Einstein, but he'd have failed the entrance exam- great, innit?).
You're a joke.
You're making one really obvious and fatal mistake - you're assuming that the extra tax would actually be raised. What might happen is that the level of taxation stays the same and money is diverted from somewhere else. Or the money in education might stay the same and standards would go down. Or maybe savings could be made without having to raise taxes or decrease standards. If there was extra tax raised, how would it be raised? Direct or indirect taxation? Indirect taxation hurts the poor proportionally more, but the government could raise the top rate of income tax. etc etc etc.
This is why your argument is so poor - it is based on too many assumptions that can't be proved.
Fatal mistake eh? :nervous:
Nice to see you make a proper post for once.......
In the end however the whys and wherefores don't matter. If the private school industry was closed down more money would be needed by the govt because they would have to provide more education.
Now you could get this money in a way that minimises the impact on the poor, but some of it will inevitably fall on the poor and harm them, that would be impossible to avoid........
Fatal for your argument.
I make proper posts quite a bit - you usually choose to ignore them.
Errr...yes they do matter. For the reasons I have stated.
Unbelievable! You acknowledge my point, but then ignore it anyway!
Errr...I have shown this to be an unprovable assumption, leaving your argument rather up shit creek. At least have the balls to admit it.
That seems a far more tenuous proposition than the one I have made frankly........
I'm not saying it could. All I'm doing is showing that your assertion that "Private schooling directly benefits poor people." is nonsense based on unprovable assertions. At least have the balls to admit it.
Can you name me a situation where the govt has needed money for something and what they have done to raise that money has not hurt poor people in anyway?
go on then, prove it
you have to prove that they would need to raise the money through indirect taxation or by raising the basic rate of income tax first
Perhaps thats the reason there are so many commies-in-training at University. Students can afford to moan about social inequality because they have no real responsibilities (like kids or a mortgage). Out in the real world its dog-eat-dog.
Because a lot of people in the public and voluntary sector are as well paid as their equivalents in the private sector?
erm in teaching, the starting wage is about £17k a year rising to about 20k/year in the state sector after a couple of years for most.
im trying to find some information on private sector wages but so far no luck
i know in private tuition you can get £35+/hour which on a 15 hour week(since you dont charge for what work you do at home in marking, just the time your with the student) is well above 20k a year - about 28k a year.
it's not the wages of the private teaching that's the issue it's the fact its wealth based selection unless you're amazing at exams (doesn't necesserily mean you're actually the cleverest though)
The idea that the public sector works for low wages is crap. I'm in the public sector and get paid better than my twin sister, with longer holidays than she does in the private
They're not though.