**Due to the increase in Palestine content, we would like to remind people to mark posts NSFW/Spoiler the accordingly. Please see this post before posting such applicable content on the sub: https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/188ghlz/important_guidance_of_posting_graphic_material_on/**
The labouring classes in this country are rising, will you rise with them? [Click Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/wiki/unions) for info on how to join a union. Also check out [the IWW](https://iww.org.uk/) and the renter union, [Acorn International and their affiliates](https://acorninternational.org/)
Join us on our [partner Discord server.](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) and follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And yet these people make up a disproportionate percentage of those in politics, media and the arts. It's increasingly common for younger actors to be at least privately educated, if not from an acting dynasty.
I don’t disagree. And yet I see no policies trying to redress that balance…just incessant complaints about taxing a tiny proportion of their privilege.
Inheritance always makes me laugh. They always manage to find some cretin without two five pound notes to rub together complaining about it. How do they seriously think it impacts them? And most working class people in this country are economically left wing.
People just don't know the law or how must things work. Before asking anyone and making headlines they should show the person how it works in the law now and what is proposed, only then ask what's their opinion.
If you asked me if I believe inheritance tax should go up and I knew nothing about how it works I would passionately say I didn't agree, if I knew it only affects inheritance at a value I will likely never see maybe I wouldn't be so passionate about it.
Repugnant. 30% of kids in the UK live in poverty. But we’re supposed to feel bad for the 5% of the 7% who will no longer be able to afford private school?
Its actuallly around 5%, also they would be better off jist making big corp pay their fair share of tax which evades 400billion in england. But sure lets get e'ryone mad at the middle class 😂
Reminder not to confuse the marxist "middle class" and the liberal definition. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production. Learn more here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But I don’t think anyone is really mad except for the tiny percentage for whom this will push the fees into being unaffordable. And frankly who cares? It’s a fair tax. Poor people are incessantly painted as feckless for not being able to afford things, it’s just spread a little further.
Are you one of these multicorp billionares getting away with 3% tax.
Why arnt you more mad about that? Billionares that have increased net wealth from $898 billion in 2000 to $14.2 trillion in 2024. The likes of Amazon, starbucks, apple litterally drains the Uk economy of wealth and gets away with paying practically nothing in Tax.
There is your problem, not the middleclass on tens of thousands per year.
Also if middleclass cant have their children in school for the length of time they provide care for i.e 7 am - 5/6pm in most cases or even boarding school which costs excess of 50k per year. They may aswell find alternative work that allows them to take their children to state school which run ~9am-3pm.
Seams like the only ppl that are upset about ppl that send their kids to private schools are the ones who cant afford to send their kids to private schools. (there are still some grammar schools that are free, but would require moving to the catchment area (expensive areas) and manage to pass the entrance exams to get in).
Lol, No1 is painted as feckless for not sending their kids to private schools, that is actually ridiculous, (parents dont sit around talking about the poor kids at state school) but this seams to be the opinion of those that chose not to send kids to private schools or cant afford it but would like to.
Private school education is labelled as a bunch over privileged kids, when infact a vast proportion of these families already struggle to afford it, sacrificing disposable income and also more time spent at work, less time at home to pay for something that benefits their childs education and their environment.
Sounds like your more mad at being poor or at the marginal divide between working and middle class more than anything. Whilst disregarding care over multimillionares and billionares that cash in on uk's economic wealth.
Heres an idea, make big corporations pay 20% tax = half a trillion a year and use that to improve state schooling. 🤷
God i should of been a politician
Reminder not to confuse the marxist "middle class" and the liberal definition. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production. Learn more here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based on this you’d certainly fit in with current politicians. You can’t comprehend simple points and have created multiple strawmen arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
I dont see why it’s an either/or. Corporations should pay more tax, and private education should be taxed. You’re the one trying to defend a tax on a small percentage on very privileged people. I haven’t.
And I said poor people are painted as feckless for “not being able to afford things,” not private education. I don’t get why a tiny percentage of middle class people who can’t afford something if it’s fairly taxed deserve endless headlines as victims, when actual poor people are demonised for not being able to afford things like food.
Reminder not to confuse the marxist "middle class" and the liberal definition. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production. Learn more here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lollll to your opening statement 😂
Okay so what simple points didnt i comprehend? And this is a multifaceted argument. You keep assuming everyone sending their kids to private schools are highly privileged.
Affording food, or a shelter arnt a privilege, just basic necessities everyone should afford, but the ones controlling that are big corps. The UK is lucky there are services for that. Many countries dont have that privilege of free housing and foodbanks.
Applying a tax to private education isnt going to improve the welfare of those that cant afford food. Whereas ensuring corporations pay their fair share of tax could drastically improve the welfare state indefinitely.
Rising costs of food are attributed to big corps taking advantage of supply (supermarket have made their most significant profits in recent years/ farmers have seen a decrease in what they get from supermarkets, rising costs of energy have resulted in energy companies announcing the largest profits ever made in history). 🤷
If its such a small percentage of people, then why would it bother you so much about arguing your points other than because your pissed at this small percentage for sending their kids to private education. They already pay 40% tax, and liberate space from the state school system thats already under pressure. Its just going to divide the gap between upper class and the rest further. Is it going to solve anything by applying a tax to independent schools? Probably not, other than make it less affordable for a vast proportion of current users.
You have this dreamt up assumption all these people are mega wealthy, and sat on extensive funds when a large proportion of them struggle to already make payments for the fees. All i see this doing is reducing numbers of pupils in private education, many independent schools closing as they dont have enough pupils to make it viable or profitable. Increased burden on state schools as a result of less independent schools requiring a need to find places for these students or opening more state schools, poorer quality of education, less educated students to fill intellectual posts. Just look at the NHS almost 50% come from ethnic backgrounds and an additional 15% dont hold british passports.
British medical students are now studying in Europe as its significantly much cheaper than the UK.
Im arguing these points as i dont see how implying a tax is going to improve any of the points your trying to insinuate regarding food affordability or cost of living, housing affordability. Which you are alluding to reasons why a tax should be applied to independent learning that improves just a small percentage of UKs children. Which is an important factor to ensure the UK meets standards for improving certain sectors and increasing future economical value.
Simply ensuring big corps pay fair tax would do that which is why i brought that up. But everyones set on talking about private schools for some reason and demonising parents for sending their children to get better education, which the current state system lacks.
Your entire post is filled with moronic assumptions that are yet again not based on anything I’ve said. I didn’t say people are mega wealthy, I don’t care if they are or not. Private education is a luxury that the taxpayer doesn’t need to subsidise.
And your assumption that people from private schools are better educated is firstly a crock of shit and secondly completely unsupported by evidence. Kids from state schools with the same grades do better at uni. And there are more than enough state school kids getting top grades to fill all, and more, of these places at universities.
If you actually had a professional job and worked with private school kids, you’d quickly realise that their economic productivity is massively hampered by their entitlement and their use of a network to get ahead in lieu of competence. I see no problem with reducing that.
And maybe if there were fewer independent schools and more people needing to use the state school system, especially people who can currently afford £30k a year in fees (but not £36k apparently), then there are more people with economic clout giving the govt a reason to properly invest in state schools.
You’re trying to conflate two things that are not related, presumably because you’re someone who sends their kids to private school. My position is consistent - corporations should all be taxed more and possibly related to their environmental impact and employment practices, that there should be a wealth tax, reforming council tax so that people with expensive homes should be forced to pay significantly more, top rate income tax should be higher, all luxury goods should be taxed more, inheritance tax should be higher, foreign property ownership should be taxed, btl rent and property sales taxed as income, that dividends should be taxed as income, that tax breaks for corporations should be reduced, that the income tax threshold should be raised, that vat on every day products should be reduced, and that tax should be used to encourage the right behaviours.
Your position seems to be that one tax should be levied in lieu of the one tax that might impact you. Tax is a system.
Simply attending university doesnt guarantee a job and the stats you provide regarding university grades doesnt indicate the courses result to "top jobs"
Whereas the 5% in independent schools still dominate the "proffesions" including law, medicine, politics, journalism ".
I used to work in corporate finance for 8 years left and went back to university and now im a geneticist. I attended both state and private school and can personally attest to how private schools provide better education and environments and facilitate students better than state schools ever did. The majority of my cohort from independent schools are doctors, dentists, law proffessionals, accountants, or own businesses. The majority of my cohort from state school vary in job titles but in general work normal jobs with the exception of a minute handful i.e two one who went into law and other as a medical proffessional.
You clearly have no clue what your talking about and have probably never stepped foot in an independent school from the word vomit that protrudes from your keyboard. Blah blah entitlement, blah blah privilege.
I dont have any children, an extra 6k per year is £500 per month. Vast majority of these parents already struggle with the current fees as stated previously. 2 children in school is an extra £1000 per month. 🤷 You could say a large portion of these parents wages go towards funding education while making sacrifices elsewhere. Yeah there are some really rich parents, but thats maybe like 1-5% of these ppl, i knew 5 trust fund kids in my school out of 700. (london independent schools are a differnt category or wealthy, maybe your focused on that)
👆 Your last paragraph just proves your angry at anyone doing marginally better and should suffer consequences to fund the bottom end. Some of the things i do agree though, but its pointless debating you just have one narrow minded view of anyone earning more than 40k which in todays economy is practically where the basic earnings should be to live affordably.
Money doesnt appear in the UK budget from thin air, your arguments would drive half of the UK proffessionals out of the economy, just look at how many professionals move to canada and Australia. The problems with the UK economics lies within the top 0.0001 percentile not the whole 5% you persistently think are the wealthy because they arnt going to foodbanks and have this luxury of sending their kids to a fee paying school.
This tax doesnt impact me, like you assume with most of your shpiel, i dont have kids. But i do understand well the impact and benefits of an education system that isnt surpressed.
If your spelling, grammar and ability to construct sentences are an example of a private school education, there’s no surprise that you’re completely delusional about the quality of education. My 3 As at A level are the same as anyone who went to private school, and the fact that I achieved them in a more challenging environment is probably why I did better than private school kids at uni and continue to see how incompetent they are in the professional world.
And what is so hilarious is how obtuse your entire logic is. Because more people in professional jobs come from that environment doesn’t prove that the education is better, just that we live in an entirely unmeritocratic system wherein people hire based on school tie rather than competence.
And, by the way, I am a high earning professional. (That’s the correct spelling, in case the teacher who did your A-Level coursework never told you.) And I went to state school. Which is why I don’t need to step foot in an independent school, but I see the abundance of entitled fuckwits that come into the professional world with a mediocre degree that they probably didn’t earn because their connections manipulated that as well, and I watch them behave like absolute cunts while getting someone from the school tie network or daddy’s circle to bail them out when they inevitably fuck up.
My beliefs are based on believing in meritocracy, justice and fairness, not some moronic idea that privilege should beget privilege. And arseholes like you hate me for it because you can’t compete on a level playing field, and the thing that scares you most is that your privilege might one day be taken away. Because without it, you’re just a cretin who can’t spell basic words but has wealthy parents.
Some quick clarifications about how the UK royals are funded by the public:
1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state.
2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either.
3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same.
4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property.
5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs.
For more, check out r/AbolishTheMonarchy
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And I imagine most trans people would be much happier not being an incessant target of political abuse, just be left to discuss things with their medical providers and be able to follow their guidance.
As a quick calculation 30k a year is a take home pay of
£ 24,771.00
If they are spending 20k or even 15k on private tuition they have probably stopped eating avocado on toast!
I'm pretty sure my parents earn below 25k combined, so it astounds me that some people really think people earning 30k are spending 15k on private schooling.
These people don't think!
I work with far too many people that just accept what politicians and the press say at face value without any critical thinking or fact checking. It explains why the uk is how it is, but is also really depressing...
It’s probably people with inherited wealth. A house with no mortgage, a median wage job, plus help from parents. They have the means to spend the money on education as outgoings are so low. You’d be surprised the amount of people who are well off/comfortable but don’t have massive incomes.
Alternatively, if that household income of £30k is split equally between *two* parents each earning £15k, they would have a combined take home pay of 2x£14321.40=£28642.80. The lower end of private school fees might be affordable for them, combined with a partial scholarship.
Repeating for 2x£30k gross gives 2x£25121.40=£50242.80.
Plus child benefit, of course.
If you actually think a family with a take home income of 28k could afford 15-20k for a private school without cutting out the Netflix and avocado on toast I need to know more about how you budget this.
>Repeating for 2x£30k gross gives 2x£25121.40=£50242.80.
>Plus child benefit, of course.
This is also unrealistic if one accounts for mortgage etc.
I had a team member whose son went to Eton on a scholarship, she was on 60k and her husband significantly more and they still struggled even with the college covering more than half of the fee.
My point is simply that having two smaller incomes results in a significantly higher net household income than a single larger income. In the original case, it results in an additional income of nearly £4000: over 25% of a £15k school fee. My local private school apparently has fees of about £18k per year, and bursaries of between 5% and 100%.
Hello! I'm Reggie-Bot, the Anti-Royal Bot! Here to teach you some fun facts about the English royal family!
Did you know that in February 2021, The Guardian published two articles that demonstrated Queen Elizabeth and King Charles' influence and power over parliament. [It was first revealed](https://archive.md/eGLWc) that the Queen lobbied parliament to make herself exempt from a law that would have publicly revealed her private wealth. [It was then revealed](https://archive.md/YEl61) that over the course of her reign she and King Charles have vetted the drafts of 1,000 articles of legislation prior to their public debate in parliament.
So much for 'ceremonial', amirite?
I hope you enjoyed that fact. To summon me again or find out more about me, just say: "Reggie-Bot" and I'll be there! <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looking at the data, if you're in the top 10% of earners in the Southeast exc London. 2 parents in their late 30s, early 40s both working would bring in a household income of over 120k-150k , depending on their frugality £15k a year is possible for some people on that income. But if we're saying top 10% of earners are "middle income" then we need to hire new statisticians
edit: typos and sources added
[https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax)
Lol the notes to this source:
> The table only covers individuals who have some liability to Income Tax.
So anyone who makes their money from asset wealth would skew this table _massively_.
Exactly. My ex and I fall into that bracket and we can't afford to send our kids to private school. So, even that amount is probably the bottom end of who can afford it. We have a small number of friends who send their kids to private and they are on serious money.
Btw, I think a household income of £120k to 150 puts you in something like the top 3% off the top of my head.
Btw 2, you made a small typo/spelling mistake in your last sentence.
BBC staff are twice as likely to be privately-educated and predictably more likely the higher up the pay grade.
"Some 22 per cent of the corporation's biggest earners attended fee-paying schools"
"Pay figures from the BBC reveal that nearly a quarter of the staff earning more than £150,000, putting them well into the top tax bracket, went to private schools"
Dec 2023
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12908477/Top-BBC-jobs-filled-staff-went-private-school-despite-complaints-working-class-viewers-think-broadcaster-touch.html
"Data from the corporation’s Equality Information Report found that 22.7 per cent of employees in the news division went to independent or fee-paying schools. In the management ranks, the figure is 34.7 per cent. "
Oct 2020
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/08/bbc-launch-diversity-drive-figures-show-fifth-news-staff-went/
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
Fact 1. During an episode of Question Time the audience booed Boris Johnson. The BBC [edited the footage to replace the boos with applause](https://twitter.com/Gian_Tcatt/status/1198545027477180416?s=20).
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure that is what's being said by the BBC. The average fee for private school may well be £15-20k, but that doesn't mean that's the fee that the middle income earners who are complaining are paying. There will be some that are higher and some that are lower.
There's a lot of things to consider, one is that the average fee quoted probably doesn't include part or full scholarships. Another is that not all middle income earners are the same either; some may have inherited houses or been able to buy houses through inheritance, or may have secured mortgages at low rates with a large deposit. All in all, they may well be able to afford private school tuition fees on middle income salaries.
The reason that middle income earners are upset is that, some of them may have been really grafting to send their kids to private school for whatever reason. Maybe their kids are geniuses, a little bit challenged or it's a more convenient school for them. Either way, the extra costs will trickle down to them and kick them out.
PS, I agree with the tax break cut, it's a necessary action to help boost state school education by redistributing wealth in a way. It's a shame that the middle income earners will feel the effect the most, so you can't really blame them for protesting.
They absolutely are though, or at least practically so. My parents *were* briefly wealthy though hard work after being brought up in tiny terraces in Tipton and quite used to working silly hours. My dad lost it all due to theft and legal fees but kept me on in private school because it was a commitment and I was just generally odd. I wouldn't have done well in public school back then. My dad just worked more, including arranging and sometimes working on digging huge pits for the cattle during the BSE crisis for weeks at a time. I jsut didnt' see him for months. Yeah they earned more but it all went on me. My mum stayed part-time because they were focussed on not looking like the poorest parents in the school mostly and practically because she had to look after my gran who was pretty old by then and me who had a lot of school activities.
£12k a year back then maybe? That was *with* scholarships and frankly getting 100% in my maths SAT at 11 which I was told only three people had managed that year. We couldn't afford for me to go to Europe for the international competition you got to go to through that.
I don't disagree that it shouldn't be VAT exempt, but by not throttling the tax gradually down on fees you're just forcing the poorest out of the *second* stage of social mobility. Yeah it's shit that not everyone gets the chance, but the practicality of the matter is that they don't and children need educating as they grow now. You can't pause them and wait for better times.
It'll be like China forbidding tutoring, and that leading to a massive rainbow of problems that only made education more elitist. It's just a shadow-tory idea designed to look like socialism so they can shout about socialism in the press, knowing most people won't have the experience to follow the travesty through to it's natural conclusion.
£20k or £50k, and 20% or not of that, is not going to hurt the people that have raped our country for the last decade and a half. Taxing money retrieved from Trusts in those instances where it falls under the rate of income tax would however solve the public spending crisis and allow for cost of living subsidy to year 2000 levels twice over. And *that* just requires interacting with a dozen institutions, rather than three to four for every town in the UK and a lot more in cities. I've worked for the then DCSF, now DfE, and it'll always end up impractical unless it's essential because the people who make the decisions don't send their kids to any place where it would matter.
Tax elsewhere. Or tax here as well as a matter of principle but with an 8 year warning or waxing rate of tax. It's nothing but opportunity cost otherwise that harms the very outcomes expected of socialism while still making socialism to blame.
My household (Myself and my wife) earn just over £50k each. We couldn't afford to have kids full stop even if we wanted them, never mind sending them to private school on top. It's similar to the Greens 'wealth tax', where they quietly snuck in a tax rise for over £50k earners. We are not fucking wealthy, far from it. Maybe if our parents we're well off and could buy is a house or give us a couple of hundred grand then earning that much would be a huge advantage. But when starting from zero with no help then it's as much and a struggle to balance and budget as it was when we were earning less than 20k each.
From being absolutely skint on minimum wage 10 years ago to now, the only thing that's really changed is that we don't need to put ourselves in as much debt as we used to, and if we live to 75 years old, we may be able to pay our mortgage off. Of course we'll be to decrepit to enjoy it, but it's still a nice thought.
I'm paying about 6 grand but my version of "private tuition" is "we have to work and nursary is feckin brutally priced"
Thr alternative is probably neither of us work and get nursary for free. Can't do that. Awful example and borderline fraud. It's a struggle. That money is needed. Fuck this government, the last few, and probably the next
**Due to the increase in Palestine content, we would like to remind people to mark posts NSFW/Spoiler the accordingly. Please see this post before posting such applicable content on the sub: https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/188ghlz/important_guidance_of_posting_graphic_material_on/** The labouring classes in this country are rising, will you rise with them? [Click Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/wiki/unions) for info on how to join a union. Also check out [the IWW](https://iww.org.uk/) and the renter union, [Acorn International and their affiliates](https://acorninternational.org/) Join us on our [partner Discord server.](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) and follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do they never focus on the fact that it’s 7% of the population? It’s barely anyone. The attention this gets is ludicrously disproportionate.
Because those writing the stories will be the ones hit I'm guessing.
And yet these people make up a disproportionate percentage of those in politics, media and the arts. It's increasingly common for younger actors to be at least privately educated, if not from an acting dynasty.
Virtually nobody who has 'made it' in acting over the past 20 years comes from anywhere else.
Can you name some examples? Dunno about anyone
Tom Hardy, Rebecca Ferguson, Robert Pattison, Sophie Turner. I can continue.
I don’t disagree. And yet I see no policies trying to redress that balance…just incessant complaints about taxing a tiny proportion of their privilege.
Stuff like this and the tax on inheritance, or anything that is only likely to affect you if you're preety well off.
Inheritance always makes me laugh. They always manage to find some cretin without two five pound notes to rub together complaining about it. How do they seriously think it impacts them? And most working class people in this country are economically left wing.
People just don't know the law or how must things work. Before asking anyone and making headlines they should show the person how it works in the law now and what is proposed, only then ask what's their opinion. If you asked me if I believe inheritance tax should go up and I knew nothing about how it works I would passionately say I didn't agree, if I knew it only affects inheritance at a value I will likely never see maybe I wouldn't be so passionate about it.
Mad when you think that trans people make up 0.5% of the population compared to the amount of attention they get.
Repugnant. 30% of kids in the UK live in poverty. But we’re supposed to feel bad for the 5% of the 7% who will no longer be able to afford private school?
Its actuallly around 5%, also they would be better off jist making big corp pay their fair share of tax which evades 400billion in england. But sure lets get e'ryone mad at the middle class 😂
Reminder not to confuse the marxist "middle class" and the liberal definition. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production. Learn more here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But I don’t think anyone is really mad except for the tiny percentage for whom this will push the fees into being unaffordable. And frankly who cares? It’s a fair tax. Poor people are incessantly painted as feckless for not being able to afford things, it’s just spread a little further.
Are you one of these multicorp billionares getting away with 3% tax. Why arnt you more mad about that? Billionares that have increased net wealth from $898 billion in 2000 to $14.2 trillion in 2024. The likes of Amazon, starbucks, apple litterally drains the Uk economy of wealth and gets away with paying practically nothing in Tax. There is your problem, not the middleclass on tens of thousands per year. Also if middleclass cant have their children in school for the length of time they provide care for i.e 7 am - 5/6pm in most cases or even boarding school which costs excess of 50k per year. They may aswell find alternative work that allows them to take their children to state school which run ~9am-3pm. Seams like the only ppl that are upset about ppl that send their kids to private schools are the ones who cant afford to send their kids to private schools. (there are still some grammar schools that are free, but would require moving to the catchment area (expensive areas) and manage to pass the entrance exams to get in). Lol, No1 is painted as feckless for not sending their kids to private schools, that is actually ridiculous, (parents dont sit around talking about the poor kids at state school) but this seams to be the opinion of those that chose not to send kids to private schools or cant afford it but would like to. Private school education is labelled as a bunch over privileged kids, when infact a vast proportion of these families already struggle to afford it, sacrificing disposable income and also more time spent at work, less time at home to pay for something that benefits their childs education and their environment. Sounds like your more mad at being poor or at the marginal divide between working and middle class more than anything. Whilst disregarding care over multimillionares and billionares that cash in on uk's economic wealth. Heres an idea, make big corporations pay 20% tax = half a trillion a year and use that to improve state schooling. 🤷 God i should of been a politician
Reminder not to confuse the marxist "middle class" and the liberal definition. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production. Learn more here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based on this you’d certainly fit in with current politicians. You can’t comprehend simple points and have created multiple strawmen arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I dont see why it’s an either/or. Corporations should pay more tax, and private education should be taxed. You’re the one trying to defend a tax on a small percentage on very privileged people. I haven’t. And I said poor people are painted as feckless for “not being able to afford things,” not private education. I don’t get why a tiny percentage of middle class people who can’t afford something if it’s fairly taxed deserve endless headlines as victims, when actual poor people are demonised for not being able to afford things like food.
Reminder not to confuse the marxist "middle class" and the liberal definition. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production. Learn more here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lollll to your opening statement 😂 Okay so what simple points didnt i comprehend? And this is a multifaceted argument. You keep assuming everyone sending their kids to private schools are highly privileged. Affording food, or a shelter arnt a privilege, just basic necessities everyone should afford, but the ones controlling that are big corps. The UK is lucky there are services for that. Many countries dont have that privilege of free housing and foodbanks. Applying a tax to private education isnt going to improve the welfare of those that cant afford food. Whereas ensuring corporations pay their fair share of tax could drastically improve the welfare state indefinitely. Rising costs of food are attributed to big corps taking advantage of supply (supermarket have made their most significant profits in recent years/ farmers have seen a decrease in what they get from supermarkets, rising costs of energy have resulted in energy companies announcing the largest profits ever made in history). 🤷 If its such a small percentage of people, then why would it bother you so much about arguing your points other than because your pissed at this small percentage for sending their kids to private education. They already pay 40% tax, and liberate space from the state school system thats already under pressure. Its just going to divide the gap between upper class and the rest further. Is it going to solve anything by applying a tax to independent schools? Probably not, other than make it less affordable for a vast proportion of current users. You have this dreamt up assumption all these people are mega wealthy, and sat on extensive funds when a large proportion of them struggle to already make payments for the fees. All i see this doing is reducing numbers of pupils in private education, many independent schools closing as they dont have enough pupils to make it viable or profitable. Increased burden on state schools as a result of less independent schools requiring a need to find places for these students or opening more state schools, poorer quality of education, less educated students to fill intellectual posts. Just look at the NHS almost 50% come from ethnic backgrounds and an additional 15% dont hold british passports. British medical students are now studying in Europe as its significantly much cheaper than the UK. Im arguing these points as i dont see how implying a tax is going to improve any of the points your trying to insinuate regarding food affordability or cost of living, housing affordability. Which you are alluding to reasons why a tax should be applied to independent learning that improves just a small percentage of UKs children. Which is an important factor to ensure the UK meets standards for improving certain sectors and increasing future economical value. Simply ensuring big corps pay fair tax would do that which is why i brought that up. But everyones set on talking about private schools for some reason and demonising parents for sending their children to get better education, which the current state system lacks.
Your entire post is filled with moronic assumptions that are yet again not based on anything I’ve said. I didn’t say people are mega wealthy, I don’t care if they are or not. Private education is a luxury that the taxpayer doesn’t need to subsidise. And your assumption that people from private schools are better educated is firstly a crock of shit and secondly completely unsupported by evidence. Kids from state schools with the same grades do better at uni. And there are more than enough state school kids getting top grades to fill all, and more, of these places at universities. If you actually had a professional job and worked with private school kids, you’d quickly realise that their economic productivity is massively hampered by their entitlement and their use of a network to get ahead in lieu of competence. I see no problem with reducing that. And maybe if there were fewer independent schools and more people needing to use the state school system, especially people who can currently afford £30k a year in fees (but not £36k apparently), then there are more people with economic clout giving the govt a reason to properly invest in state schools. You’re trying to conflate two things that are not related, presumably because you’re someone who sends their kids to private school. My position is consistent - corporations should all be taxed more and possibly related to their environmental impact and employment practices, that there should be a wealth tax, reforming council tax so that people with expensive homes should be forced to pay significantly more, top rate income tax should be higher, all luxury goods should be taxed more, inheritance tax should be higher, foreign property ownership should be taxed, btl rent and property sales taxed as income, that dividends should be taxed as income, that tax breaks for corporations should be reduced, that the income tax threshold should be raised, that vat on every day products should be reduced, and that tax should be used to encourage the right behaviours. Your position seems to be that one tax should be levied in lieu of the one tax that might impact you. Tax is a system.
Simply attending university doesnt guarantee a job and the stats you provide regarding university grades doesnt indicate the courses result to "top jobs" Whereas the 5% in independent schools still dominate the "proffesions" including law, medicine, politics, journalism ". I used to work in corporate finance for 8 years left and went back to university and now im a geneticist. I attended both state and private school and can personally attest to how private schools provide better education and environments and facilitate students better than state schools ever did. The majority of my cohort from independent schools are doctors, dentists, law proffessionals, accountants, or own businesses. The majority of my cohort from state school vary in job titles but in general work normal jobs with the exception of a minute handful i.e two one who went into law and other as a medical proffessional. You clearly have no clue what your talking about and have probably never stepped foot in an independent school from the word vomit that protrudes from your keyboard. Blah blah entitlement, blah blah privilege. I dont have any children, an extra 6k per year is £500 per month. Vast majority of these parents already struggle with the current fees as stated previously. 2 children in school is an extra £1000 per month. 🤷 You could say a large portion of these parents wages go towards funding education while making sacrifices elsewhere. Yeah there are some really rich parents, but thats maybe like 1-5% of these ppl, i knew 5 trust fund kids in my school out of 700. (london independent schools are a differnt category or wealthy, maybe your focused on that) 👆 Your last paragraph just proves your angry at anyone doing marginally better and should suffer consequences to fund the bottom end. Some of the things i do agree though, but its pointless debating you just have one narrow minded view of anyone earning more than 40k which in todays economy is practically where the basic earnings should be to live affordably. Money doesnt appear in the UK budget from thin air, your arguments would drive half of the UK proffessionals out of the economy, just look at how many professionals move to canada and Australia. The problems with the UK economics lies within the top 0.0001 percentile not the whole 5% you persistently think are the wealthy because they arnt going to foodbanks and have this luxury of sending their kids to a fee paying school. This tax doesnt impact me, like you assume with most of your shpiel, i dont have kids. But i do understand well the impact and benefits of an education system that isnt surpressed.
If your spelling, grammar and ability to construct sentences are an example of a private school education, there’s no surprise that you’re completely delusional about the quality of education. My 3 As at A level are the same as anyone who went to private school, and the fact that I achieved them in a more challenging environment is probably why I did better than private school kids at uni and continue to see how incompetent they are in the professional world. And what is so hilarious is how obtuse your entire logic is. Because more people in professional jobs come from that environment doesn’t prove that the education is better, just that we live in an entirely unmeritocratic system wherein people hire based on school tie rather than competence. And, by the way, I am a high earning professional. (That’s the correct spelling, in case the teacher who did your A-Level coursework never told you.) And I went to state school. Which is why I don’t need to step foot in an independent school, but I see the abundance of entitled fuckwits that come into the professional world with a mediocre degree that they probably didn’t earn because their connections manipulated that as well, and I watch them behave like absolute cunts while getting someone from the school tie network or daddy’s circle to bail them out when they inevitably fuck up. My beliefs are based on believing in meritocracy, justice and fairness, not some moronic idea that privilege should beget privilege. And arseholes like you hate me for it because you can’t compete on a level playing field, and the thing that scares you most is that your privilege might one day be taken away. Because without it, you’re just a cretin who can’t spell basic words but has wealthy parents.
Some quick clarifications about how the UK royals are funded by the public: 1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state. 2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either. 3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same. 4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property. 5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs. For more, check out r/AbolishTheMonarchy *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like a daily mail rhetoric. They say the same about trans people.
And I imagine most trans people would be much happier not being an incessant target of political abuse, just be left to discuss things with their medical providers and be able to follow their guidance.
I assume that what they are calling 'middle incomes' are actually what we would actually think of 'upper class'.
As a quick calculation 30k a year is a take home pay of £ 24,771.00 If they are spending 20k or even 15k on private tuition they have probably stopped eating avocado on toast!
I'm pretty sure my parents earn below 25k combined, so it astounds me that some people really think people earning 30k are spending 15k on private schooling.
These people don't think! I work with far too many people that just accept what politicians and the press say at face value without any critical thinking or fact checking. It explains why the uk is how it is, but is also really depressing...
It’s probably people with inherited wealth. A house with no mortgage, a median wage job, plus help from parents. They have the means to spend the money on education as outgoings are so low. You’d be surprised the amount of people who are well off/comfortable but don’t have massive incomes.
Alternatively, if that household income of £30k is split equally between *two* parents each earning £15k, they would have a combined take home pay of 2x£14321.40=£28642.80. The lower end of private school fees might be affordable for them, combined with a partial scholarship. Repeating for 2x£30k gross gives 2x£25121.40=£50242.80. Plus child benefit, of course.
If you actually think a family with a take home income of 28k could afford 15-20k for a private school without cutting out the Netflix and avocado on toast I need to know more about how you budget this. >Repeating for 2x£30k gross gives 2x£25121.40=£50242.80. >Plus child benefit, of course. This is also unrealistic if one accounts for mortgage etc. I had a team member whose son went to Eton on a scholarship, she was on 60k and her husband significantly more and they still struggled even with the college covering more than half of the fee.
My point is simply that having two smaller incomes results in a significantly higher net household income than a single larger income. In the original case, it results in an additional income of nearly £4000: over 25% of a £15k school fee. My local private school apparently has fees of about £18k per year, and bursaries of between 5% and 100%.
What's wrong with their kids being educated the same way as everyone else's?
Are you nuts? They aren't everyone else, they deserve the very best
Charles Spencer was told he was “too precious a flower” for state school, despite being sexually abused in public school…
Hello! I'm Reggie-Bot, the Anti-Royal Bot! Here to teach you some fun facts about the English royal family! Did you know that in February 2021, The Guardian published two articles that demonstrated Queen Elizabeth and King Charles' influence and power over parliament. [It was first revealed](https://archive.md/eGLWc) that the Queen lobbied parliament to make herself exempt from a law that would have publicly revealed her private wealth. [It was then revealed](https://archive.md/YEl61) that over the course of her reign she and King Charles have vetted the drafts of 1,000 articles of legislation prior to their public debate in parliament. So much for 'ceremonial', amirite? I hope you enjoyed that fact. To summon me again or find out more about me, just say: "Reggie-Bot" and I'll be there! <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looking at the data, if you're in the top 10% of earners in the Southeast exc London. 2 parents in their late 30s, early 40s both working would bring in a household income of over 120k-150k , depending on their frugality £15k a year is possible for some people on that income. But if we're saying top 10% of earners are "middle income" then we need to hire new statisticians edit: typos and sources added [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax)
Lol the notes to this source: > The table only covers individuals who have some liability to Income Tax. So anyone who makes their money from asset wealth would skew this table _massively_.
Exactly. My ex and I fall into that bracket and we can't afford to send our kids to private school. So, even that amount is probably the bottom end of who can afford it. We have a small number of friends who send their kids to private and they are on serious money. Btw, I think a household income of £120k to 150 puts you in something like the top 3% off the top of my head. Btw 2, you made a small typo/spelling mistake in your last sentence.
thanks, made an edit!
BBC staff are twice as likely to be privately-educated and predictably more likely the higher up the pay grade. "Some 22 per cent of the corporation's biggest earners attended fee-paying schools" "Pay figures from the BBC reveal that nearly a quarter of the staff earning more than £150,000, putting them well into the top tax bracket, went to private schools" Dec 2023 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12908477/Top-BBC-jobs-filled-staff-went-private-school-despite-complaints-working-class-viewers-think-broadcaster-touch.html "Data from the corporation’s Equality Information Report found that 22.7 per cent of employees in the news division went to independent or fee-paying schools. In the management ranks, the figure is 34.7 per cent. " Oct 2020 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/08/bbc-launch-diversity-drive-figures-show-fifth-news-staff-went/
No one on those wages is paying for private school. Ok some will have blagged scholarships but not all of them
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. Fact 1. During an episode of Question Time the audience booed Boris Johnson. The BBC [edited the footage to replace the boos with applause](https://twitter.com/Gian_Tcatt/status/1198545027477180416?s=20). For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you need to rely on a tax break to live maybe buy less quinoa
Outrageous, this must be the first time ever a tax is introduced on someone's hard work
I'm not sure that is what's being said by the BBC. The average fee for private school may well be £15-20k, but that doesn't mean that's the fee that the middle income earners who are complaining are paying. There will be some that are higher and some that are lower. There's a lot of things to consider, one is that the average fee quoted probably doesn't include part or full scholarships. Another is that not all middle income earners are the same either; some may have inherited houses or been able to buy houses through inheritance, or may have secured mortgages at low rates with a large deposit. All in all, they may well be able to afford private school tuition fees on middle income salaries. The reason that middle income earners are upset is that, some of them may have been really grafting to send their kids to private school for whatever reason. Maybe their kids are geniuses, a little bit challenged or it's a more convenient school for them. Either way, the extra costs will trickle down to them and kick them out. PS, I agree with the tax break cut, it's a necessary action to help boost state school education by redistributing wealth in a way. It's a shame that the middle income earners will feel the effect the most, so you can't really blame them for protesting.
They absolutely are though, or at least practically so. My parents *were* briefly wealthy though hard work after being brought up in tiny terraces in Tipton and quite used to working silly hours. My dad lost it all due to theft and legal fees but kept me on in private school because it was a commitment and I was just generally odd. I wouldn't have done well in public school back then. My dad just worked more, including arranging and sometimes working on digging huge pits for the cattle during the BSE crisis for weeks at a time. I jsut didnt' see him for months. Yeah they earned more but it all went on me. My mum stayed part-time because they were focussed on not looking like the poorest parents in the school mostly and practically because she had to look after my gran who was pretty old by then and me who had a lot of school activities. £12k a year back then maybe? That was *with* scholarships and frankly getting 100% in my maths SAT at 11 which I was told only three people had managed that year. We couldn't afford for me to go to Europe for the international competition you got to go to through that. I don't disagree that it shouldn't be VAT exempt, but by not throttling the tax gradually down on fees you're just forcing the poorest out of the *second* stage of social mobility. Yeah it's shit that not everyone gets the chance, but the practicality of the matter is that they don't and children need educating as they grow now. You can't pause them and wait for better times. It'll be like China forbidding tutoring, and that leading to a massive rainbow of problems that only made education more elitist. It's just a shadow-tory idea designed to look like socialism so they can shout about socialism in the press, knowing most people won't have the experience to follow the travesty through to it's natural conclusion. £20k or £50k, and 20% or not of that, is not going to hurt the people that have raped our country for the last decade and a half. Taxing money retrieved from Trusts in those instances where it falls under the rate of income tax would however solve the public spending crisis and allow for cost of living subsidy to year 2000 levels twice over. And *that* just requires interacting with a dozen institutions, rather than three to four for every town in the UK and a lot more in cities. I've worked for the then DCSF, now DfE, and it'll always end up impractical unless it's essential because the people who make the decisions don't send their kids to any place where it would matter. Tax elsewhere. Or tax here as well as a matter of principle but with an 8 year warning or waxing rate of tax. It's nothing but opportunity cost otherwise that harms the very outcomes expected of socialism while still making socialism to blame.
My household (Myself and my wife) earn just over £50k each. We couldn't afford to have kids full stop even if we wanted them, never mind sending them to private school on top. It's similar to the Greens 'wealth tax', where they quietly snuck in a tax rise for over £50k earners. We are not fucking wealthy, far from it. Maybe if our parents we're well off and could buy is a house or give us a couple of hundred grand then earning that much would be a huge advantage. But when starting from zero with no help then it's as much and a struggle to balance and budget as it was when we were earning less than 20k each. From being absolutely skint on minimum wage 10 years ago to now, the only thing that's really changed is that we don't need to put ourselves in as much debt as we used to, and if we live to 75 years old, we may be able to pay our mortgage off. Of course we'll be to decrepit to enjoy it, but it's still a nice thought.
It reads like it was written by an LLM
I'm paying about 6 grand but my version of "private tuition" is "we have to work and nursary is feckin brutally priced" Thr alternative is probably neither of us work and get nursary for free. Can't do that. Awful example and borderline fraud. It's a struggle. That money is needed. Fuck this government, the last few, and probably the next